Water Conservation; businesses exempt ( Archived) (84)

Because of the severe drought in California, we just got notice that starting next month, everyone will have to conserve. There's now a limit of daily water usage for single households, families (per unit/head) but businesses are exempt. The local rag states that the reason is that they cannot predict/estimate usage. (That's b.s. in my opinion).

While I think some enterprises should be exempt (hospitals for example), others should not be (car washes, golf courses, country clubs, restaurants, etc.). The obvious downside is that places that make their money based on water usage would suffer to the point of possibly going out of business. Then again, how important is it to have a clean car? eat in instead of out? or have a well manicured lawn.

The fines for usage over the allotment are pretty stiff. 1/3d of the daily allowance over will be fined at about $ 100 to a max of $ 1000 per billing cycle. Then again, that raises the question: Fining may be an incentive to conserve, but it doesn't miraculously turn into greater water availability.

Do you think businesses should be exempt or not? Do you think fines are appropriate or would a simple shut-off be a better option?
How should a city and people deal with water shortages?

My personal favorite solution is to simply shut off Las Vegas and open the dams to let the water run down to California as it did in the first place (jk) Who needs Vegas anyway

although certain services can be deemed essential services..ie police. where do you draw the line. while it might not be that important to you to have your car washed or grass cut...it's probably pretty important to the person who depends on the income from that job to support their family. but at some point, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few and conservation needs to be in place to deal with the fires.

jmo

That's why I put it up for discussion. It's not just a matter of what I think. Essential services (hospital, fire, etc.) need to have access to water, but conservation is necessary. If water becomes too scarce, then those non-essential businesses will have to shut down anyway and people will be laid off. Maybe a compromise would work where they only operate a half a day.

Good question. Apparently the last two years have been the driest in history. Contingency planning is not something that the US does well on any level. That said, the diversion of a lot of water to Las Vegas has been a well known problem (the joke was really only half a joke). It has been known also that the reservoirs in WA that feed the river have been down. Conservation should have been made mandatory a long time ago, imo. Alas, here we are with the problem.

There are desalination plants. In fact, a new one is under construction. I think one additional thing that should be curbed is the sale of public wells and springs to private companies. Nestle (Swiss) is buying up water sources world-over. I think it takes no genius to figure out why they do that. The local governments are cash strapped and to meet their obligations, selling public assets is often the simplest solution. The long-term implications aren't thought about much. This is something that I wish the privatization supporters would think about more. In the end, only the people with means will be able to afford water.