{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/12/2018 2:57:13 PM
22
I have a question for any Californians here
I was in Love's last night on my meal and they had Fox News on the television. Between talking about Trump and Kim, they mentioned that California had passed a law restricting personal water use to 55 gallons per day by 2022 and down to 50 gallons by 2030. Is this true?
Yes, I know I can go to Google, but I was wanting to hear it from someone from there, maybe have it explained from ya'lls perspective and find out if ya'll actually voted for this. Thanks in advance.
Also, please keep this civil. I am not trying to start shit here, so if you would rather answer without any bullshit or drama, feel free to PM me. I may have just royally -blam!-ed up and if so, I am sorry.
English
#Offtopic
-
3 RepliesI don't know of this is true, but what I do know is true, is that personal household use of water is only about 5% of all water used on California. So if everyone in California were to use zero water, the state would reduce its water usage by 5%. When a leader in the CARB passed laws based on a deliberately erroneous study that found high amounts of diesel particulates on the air, high taxes and fees were placed on diesel usage. This caused costs of farming to skyrocket, since a lot of farming equipment and shipping trucks used diesel. As a result, California farmers switched to crops that are higher profit, like almonds, which need a lot more water. Later it was found that that high up individual had lied about having a degree in environmental science. In fact, they had no degree or college education at all. The laws that were passed during that person's leadership have not been revisited or repealed. So basically, water use in CA skyrocketed as the result of a lying douche who used the environment as a platform to get money. Solutions always seem to focus on household, personal use, when in reality that water use is a small fraction of the actual water use in the state.
-
3 RepliesCalifornia is so finished... [spoiler]prepare to [b]DIE[/b][/spoiler]
-
1 ReplyIm just going to say yes. We have had water restrictions in the past. They were repealed about a year ago due to pressure from corporations, but they are coming back.
-
1 ReplyIf we were ever in any serious shortage of water, soak city and other water parks would've been shut down and that has never happened. So they can eat me with any sort of water restriction.
-
18 RepliesEdited by XxElementZeroxX: 6/13/2018 6:21:02 AMI live in the Central Valley and this is the first I’ve heard of this. But then again, my wife and I rarely watch the news so... Wouldn’t surprise me though if this is followed through with. I know we’re allowed to water 3 times a week again. It’s nice for the lawn sure but, considering we were in a drought for close to 20 years, I don’t understand how just because we had a good winter 2 years ago we’re magically out of danger. Especially here in the valley... most of it is farm land. But noooooooo. This phuqing high speed rail is more important than water storage and desalination. Wife and I have talked many times about moving states, but she’d have to retake the Bar Exam again.
-
3 RepliesSo I am in Texas, and sometimes, during droughts, we are put on water restrictions. Is this along the same lines?
-
1 ReplyIt's all about fellating big agriculture. Limiting the water usage of real, live human beings is A-OK so long as Blue Diamond and the rest of the cartel get all the water they want to grow vast amounts of almonds in a goddamn desert. But hey, you know what they say: whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over.
-
That’s some agenda 21 right there.[spoiler]everyday gets even worse [/spoiler]
-
1 ReplyEver just flex on states with water crisis
-
1 ReplyI don't live in Cali but I'd assume it's true. Those people over consume a lot of materials.
-
6 RepliesI’m on the other side of the country but if someone uses 55 gallons of water a day then they’re not up to anything good
-
1 ReplyEdited by Section Ratio General: 6/13/2018 2:16:13 PMFirst time I heard about this, and I'm from the part of California where complaining about water problems is more common than praising Trump for every single thing he does, which both happens daily.
-
5 RepliesNot to sound insensitive but 50 gallons is pretty doable (assuming you forgo lawn care). A toilet made post 1980's shouldn't be using more than 3.5 gallons per flush. You could flush 10 times (if you're using the toilet ten times a day you should probably see a doctor), drink a gallon of water (more than recommended) and still have enough left over to brush your teeth and run a shower for five minutes straight (which us a lot more than you need if you're turning off the water between rinses). Washing clothes would be the biggest challenge (you can save a lot of water washing dishes be hand rather than using a dish washer), as older washing machines can use 40+ gallons on their own. If you stockpile water on days you're not washing, though, you should have plenty (or you can just go to a laundromat or be super hardcore and handwash) Still, it beats what they do here when reservoirs run low. When that happens they just shut off the water two days a week.
-
3 RepliesThat’s a lot of water, there’s no way the average person uses that. It’s probably to stop commercial places using to much for free. Some people need to water fields or fill swimming pools so there will be a way if you need more.
-
5 RepliesThis is just ridiculous. F*cking ridiculous. And of course [b][i]if[/i][/b] you use more than you're share (pfft, 55 gallons better be by day) you'll have to pay an inflated price. I bet there will be some premium service where you can use as much as you want if you join a [i]water[/i] plan that costs more than standard.
-
5 RepliesMother Nature hasn't been kind to California these past few years so Jerry Brown is cracking down on our water usage across the state. We had a good winter a few years ago but this winter was awful(we were hitting 80 degree days in December for crying out loud) and the snowpack in the mountains was far below average. I haven't heard of that new water restrictions you mentioned but if we have another horrible winter like the one we just got, I can expect Jerry Brown and the rest of the democrats taxing us even more.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Upperclass Bum: 6/13/2018 3:52:41 AMThe -blam!- if I know... I know last year there was something called "Measure F" in Apple Valley, but I forget what exactly it pertained to despite being bombarded with adds for and against it... Offtopic, but what the hell is a "Love's"? I assume it's a diner / truckstop and I feel like I've asked you that before.
-
9 RepliesSadly yes, it's true. As to the reasoning, I...I...I have no words... The government won't allow desalination. The people scoff at wastewater treatment. Morons, the lot. I can't wait to leave this state. [spoiler]Side note on this, our rates will go through the roof because of this. When "they" last asked us to conserve, we did, and rates went through the roof.[/spoiler]
-
5 RepliesMaybe it’s on the San Francisco website that also lets tourists know where to avoid the largest buildups of human feces is in their fair city......
-
7 RepliesEdited by Posh Josh: 6/12/2018 3:08:09 PMWait what is this b8
-
1 ReplyI am in Socal and we have had droughts. There are restrictions on garden watering in most homes around here so I wouldn't be surprised at a law like that. Why should you care though? Except maybe 1 or 2 I know we're a bunch of stuck up manipulating arse-hats.
-
1 ReplyIdk I don’t watch the news
