One word: water.
This bill [AB 1668] would require the State Water Resources Control Board, in coordination with the Department of Water Resources, to adopt long-term standards for the efficient use of water, as provided, and performance measures for commercial, industrial, and institutional water use on or before June 30, 2022. The bill would require the department, in coordination with the board, to conduct necessary studies and investigations and make recommendations, no later than October 1, 2021, for purposes of these standards and performance measures. The bill would require the department, in coordination with the board, to conduct necessary studies and investigations and would authorize the department and the board to jointly recommend to the Legislature a standard for indoor residential water use. The bill, until January 1, 2025, would establish 55 gallons per capita daily as the standard for indoor residential water use, beginning January 1, 2025, would establish the greater of 52.5 gallons per capita daily or a standard recommended by the department and the board as the standard for indoor residential water use, and beginning January 1, 2030, would establish the greater of 50 gallons per capita daily or a standard recommended by the department and the board as the standard for indoor residential water use. The bill would impose civil liability for a violation of an order or regulation issued pursuant to these provisions, as specified.
This is a bill just signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. It’s his parting “gift” to Californians who have a strange desire to bath, shower, and launder their clothing.
If the Republican candidate for governor, John Cox, runs against this draconian measure, he has a real chance of winning.
READER COMMENTS
Ben Kennedy
Jun 8 2018 at 3:12pm
Of relevance from SSC:
“But if all the savings from water rationing amounted to 20% of our residential water use, then that equals about 0.5 MAF, which is about 10% of the water used to irrigate alfalfa. The California alfalfa industry makes a total of $860 million worth of alfalfa hay per year. So if you calculate it out, a California resident who wants to spend her fair share of money to solve the water crisis without worrying about cutting back could do it by paying the alfalfa industry $2 to not grow $2 worth of alfalfa, thus saving as much water as if she very carefully rationed her own use”
A lot more good stuff at link
Alan Goldhammer
Jun 8 2018 at 5:04pm
The chances of John Cox winning the governorship of CA is as close to zero as one can get (mark this post in case the upset of the millennium occurs). Maybe this is an ideal Bryan Caplan wager.
Ben Kennedy is correct about alfalfa farming and of course there are other mega-agricultural uses of water that are wasteful though the crop prices ‘may’ be supportive of such use (almonds being a prime example). Some farmers in CA have moved towards more conservation practices but agriculture still pays below market prices for water.
Michael Byrnes
Jun 8 2018 at 11:05pm
What exactly does this bill mean for Californians?
Fines for going above the limit?
Ray
Jun 9 2018 at 10:57am
Up to $1000/day fines, I believe. Though I think targeted at water utilities?
Not getting a lot of publicity at the moment, but seem ripe for repeal by ballot measure (as last year’s gas tax hike will be).
Anyway, Cox has no chance (sadly). Krazy Kalifornia.
Carl A B Pearson
Jun 11 2018 at 5:44am
I happen to live in an area that has such restrictions (now, not in a decade) as a matter of staving off queues for potable water (Cape Town, RSA). They aren’t that hard to live by, and would be even easier in place that has more market access to new tech development. So “draconian” seems a bit hyperbolic.
That said: the problem in CT, as I suspect in CA, developed due to long term underpricing and failure to develop and maintain production / distribution infrastructure. Charging the right price would go a long way, but the State has little incentive to do so, so they wait for emergencies and roll out legal remedies to market problems. Citizens can’t map between the reality of prices for bottled water and the problem with voting to get the same product for free. This is a particular example of a relatively extreme general problem with the voters here on a wide variety of topics, but this thinking unfortunately seems to be infecting the US as well.
David O'Rear
Jun 11 2018 at 6:18am
When water is prices appropriately for everyone – not just households – the liberal economist will expect water to be most efficiently used. In recent times, some 10% of California’s water use is urban. That means a 5% improvement in agricultural water efficiency is equal to about a 25% improvement in urban efficiency.
The 2% of the economy – agriculture – that uses 80% of the water is dictating how water is priced and used.
Almonds: 10% of the state’s total water supply. Over a trillion gallons p.a. Three times the water consumed in Los Angeles.
Alfalfa: 15% of the annual supply, including massive exports. Think of it as exporting 100 billion gallons a year.
What it comes down to is that water conservation is not a priority for rural conservatives.
Comments are closed.