LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday postponed a vote on a conservation plan under which customers would face tripled charges for some of the water they use if they fail to meet targeted consumption cuts during the state’s drought.
All customers of the Los Angeles County Waterworks Districts are being asked to cut back, though those hardest hit are residents of areas with the highest per capital water use.
County customers in districts with less than 3,000 customers, such as Acton, are being asked only to comply with rules that limit outdoor irrigation to two days per week, as dictated by a statewide plan.
However, water customers in Lancaster (view the notice here) are being asked to cut back water use by 32 percent, using a 2013 baseline.
If the conservation plan is approved without changes, surcharges of 100 to 200 percent would be incurred by county water district customers who fail to meet set targets.
Water used in excess of the target and up to 115 percent of the target would be hit with a 100 percent surcharge. Any additional water used would carry a 200 percent surcharge.
Supervisor Sheila Kuehl pointed out that other water districts were making similar moves to meet the state’s goal of reducing urban water use by 25 percent.
Antonovich called for the delay, saying he wanted the department to respond to residents’ complaints about miscalculations and unrealistic targets.
“We can’t be a responsible body unless we know the facts,” Antonovich said.
The matter is expected to be heard next Tuesday (June 2).
At Supervisor Don Knabe’s recommendation, the board also directed staffers to develop additional programs to support residents’ conservation efforts.
–
SN says
Greg, Thank you for your comments! They are along the lines of what I have been thinking re: coolers and livestock but have not seen anyone address anywhere. About swamp coolers, will we be allocated any extra water to run them,bet not! Now just suppose everyone has to go to AC which uses way more energy than our good old swamp coolers. Every summer we hear about the power grid being at risk of going down, don’t use your appliances until evening, its a Flex Alert day blah, blah, blah. So….when everyone is forced into AC just exactly where are we getting all the “extra” electric power to run them? Not a word about that!
Livestock, yep a lot of folks here still live on small acreages and have animals. Not likely to let the animals go without water or try to get by on watering them less. Not enough clean fresh water for horses equals colic, ask any horse person.
I have heard zero about any extra water for animals beyond the one size fits all allotment amount. Palmdale folks with a couple of horses would have to use just about their entire 66 gallons a day per person ration just to keep their horses going!
Gardens, nope no extra water for those either. I would like to hear the explanation why its fine to buy veggies from a farmer who used “x” amount of water to raise them but heaven forbid you raise them yourself in your backyard for the same amount of water.
Guess if this continues we better build a bunch more apartments because everyone will be forced into them and be re-programmed to embrace permanent third world living conditions for “the common good”.
S says
Greg, Thank you for your comments! They are along the lines of what I have been thinking re: coolers and livestock but have not seen anyone address anywhere. We About swamp coolers, will we be allocated any extra water to run them,bet not! Now just suppose everyone has to go to AC which uses way more energy than our good old swamp coolers. Every summer we hear about the power grid being at risk of going down, don’t use your appliances until evening, its a Flex Alert day blah, blah, blah. So….when everyone is forced into AC just exactly where are we getting all the “extra” electric power to run them? Not a word about that!
Livestock, yep a lot of folks here still live on small acreages and have animals. We will likely not let our animals go without water or try to get by on watering them less. Not enough clean water for horses equals colic, ask any horse person.
I have heard zero about any extra water for animals beyond the one size fits all allotment amount. Palmdale folks with a couple of horses would have to use just about their entire 66 gallons a day per person ration just to keep their horses going!
Gardens, nope no extra water for those either. I would like to hear the explanation why its fine to buy veggies from a farmer who used “x” amount of water to raise them but heaven forbid you raise them yourself in your backyard for the same amount of water.
Guess if this continues we better build a bunch more apartments because everyone will be forced into them and be re-programmed to embrace permanent third world living conditions for “the common good”.
JustTweakIt says
If our Government(Military Branch)can make it rain in Vietnam, Surely they can produce something on a smaller scale for the state of California and future states if need be. R & D Think-Tankers.
Wade says
AMEN!!!
Resident says
California needs to use desalination for water, it’s expensive yes, but there isn’t a choice, the other sources are drying up quickly. Why isn’t the governor doing this???? Inviting in tech companies who can handle this w/tax breaks for them NOW?
Lori says
Why do we have to cut back 32% when the governor asks for 25%?
QHR says
Quartz Hill High School, please check your sprinkler heads. I saw a geyser by the front office building. Also, please conserve water! There is lots of water run off flooding Ave L and heading North.
k says
Why aren’t all areas of the AV under this proposal? And if this goes through will residents still be charged by the city for having a dead lawn?
Greg says
Other considerations the county forgot….
Swamp coolers – use of water for cooling in a desert climate which is not used as often in downtown Los Angeles.
Livestock – water for animals not just to drink but also for crops grown in yards as a food source for those same animals. We are rural in some areas, definitely not like downtown Los Angeles.
William says
Although we live in a desert, we live over an aquifer. Coastal cities don’t get their water from the Pacific Ocean but from far inland, either the Sierra Nevada mountains or the Colorado River or other inland sources such as the Owens River and Lake that feeds the Los Angleles aqueduct.
I don’t know how much of our local water usage comes from below us or if the aquifer contains as much as it did 100 years ago. I’ve heard that alfalfa growers in the Antelope Valley used to use lots of that underground source in the past.
Of course, an aquifer still needs replenishing however that occurs. But, the desert versus coastal cities competition needs to take that into consideration.
I learned from a federal employee doing some research on the Amargosa Creek that Los Angeles is also on an aquifer. I would think that there would be salt water intrusion but I guess not.
We do need to think about limiting new residential growth and not growing crops that use too much water. But, limiting growth should be a state-wide mandate. If one city does it, the developers will just go to another city next door.
Greg says
Yup. Part of the water replenishment to that aquifer is from seepage from washes/streams like Littlerock Creek. Some from catch basins. AVEK looks to be drilling new injection wells near the aqueduct to insert water from there into the aquifer. Some of the farm fields water goes back to the aquifer (that not absorbed and kept in the plants or transpired off on the wind). Septic tanks seep back into the system as well. Which is why back in the day there was a water contamination problem due to the large fowl farms that were up here.
Same thing in LA basin. Lots of waterways soak in except where they are concrete channelled. Farms seep in, etc.
Part of the issue, huge picture here, is that we humans trap the water in non-permeable systems that do not allow it to get back underground over time through a natural purification system. Too much pavement for our convenience. Too dense of populations using it faster than the surface area it is allowed to soak in through, etc.
Totally agree we need to stop building, but that requires a stagnant population growth which will not happen because we humans enjoy the act that causes population growth!
Eric says
Saudi Arabia announced last year that they were having their last harvest of wheat. One of the worlds foremost producers. They had an incredible run over a period of 30 years. The problem was, they were using water from aquifers that take hundreds of thousands of years to refill. They pumped them DRY in 30 years. Saudi Arabia is now completely dependent on desalinated water for drinking.
https://www.revealnews.org/article/what-california-can-learn-from-saudi-arabias-water-mystery/
William says
Thanks, Greg. You know much more about the process of water/aquifers than I do.
We have this notion that growth will solve our current problems. If that were the case, Los Angeles would be problem-free.
But, limiting growth would have to be statewide as I wrote before or developers would build elsewhere. So, if California did a state-wide moratorium on new residential growth and, instead, focused on retro-fitting older homes for energy and water efficiency, it would upgrade the entire state.
As California has grown over the decades, the underclass of poor, working poor and homeless continues to expand. What if we focused on addressing that situation and making this a state where everyone is doing fine not just the top and middle class? Wouldn’t we like to live in THAT state?
I just don’t get how the 1% are fine with living in a country with so much poverty and the crime and other social problems that come with that. How satisfied can someone be living in their gated estate but when they leave it and face the real world, it’s a mess.
It’s not just a national problem. Here in the Antelope Valley, we are all aware of certain parts of town that are poorer and underserved and seem to remain that way decade after decade.
I don’t know what the solution is but in Palmdale, there are plans to improve the area around the transit center and that’s a good start to improving Central Palmdale. There was a report about a Latino themed shopping center somewhere on Palmdale Boulevard which will give that area a more unified identity. From there, it will attract future new businesses just as the Mall has attracted new businesses for several blocks around it.
Joan Eirich says
The state has mismanaged our water supply and has refused to build reservoirs to collect the water we do get from the sky. And they are making up for it on the backs of the citizens. There are many public areas that could cut back on their water usage, and putting in desert scapes there as well. If we let all the vegetation around our homes die for lack of water, then our desert commmunity will be a tender box for fire season. We can do our part to conserve but the cutbacks are not realistic and all homes are not the same and should be evaluated individually.
OG says
The state has mismanaged our water? Really? You obviously don’t know about the absolutely ridicules purchase of 100s of acres of clay ground outside of Rosemond for water banking! Millions on worthless ground. But than, what else are you going to expect from the good old boys who control these boards? The AVEK is just another group that made sure their buddies were taken care of before the people they are supposed to represent!
Tom says
The problem is how LACWD calculated residential Target Quantity. The Board of Directors need to change the rules & regulations Part 5: Phased Water Conservation Plan so residential users are calculated like the large users. By reducing 32% from their 2013 monthly usage. The way it is now is unfair and is setup for failure.
Westside says
I’d like to know how they calculated the “Target Quantity (Allocation)” for each home. The letter says that “District 40 customers must collectively reduce the volume of water used in 2013 by 32 percent.” Collectively.
I get that the “Reduction Required” is calculated by subtracting your target allocation from your 2014 usage, but how did they come up with that target allocation? Is that 32% of my 2013 usage?? The usage data is from June through May. Is that June 2014 through May 2015?
Also, the Conservation Plan has not yet been approved. The vote was postponed until June 2nd. The letter makes no mention of an effective date. The section that is BOLD makes it sound like it was already approved. Do I have to make the cuts immediately? Are they effective June 1st? If the hearing is on June 2nd now, do I have to inquire as to whether or not it was approved and then make the cuts immediately?
Poor planning. Poor communication.
California residents do not mind doing their part, but when agriculture makes for 80% of the water usage and they get away with a 25% cut – why are families being forced to make cuts up to 67% from the prior year?
Tom says
Westside – It is my understanding they took the average of an area with similar water meter size and used that as a baseline. Then they reduced it by 32%.
Bruce says
I believe the 32% cut request is an average amount requested from an average family home and applied to ALL of the users as a whole. Many families are not average in numbers or the size of their green lawn or how much water they use. They will be expected to cut back well more than 32%. That 60% mentioned by “AR” above is 70% for me. There was no miscalculation. I wish there were.
Rankin says
The water co notice I received about reduction had NO info re my current usage or reduction …….
billie hansen says
all the water wasted on fish to breed instead of saving water for people. Over 150,000 or more . how many time? Mr. Brown its time you take the money for your bullet train to no where. and start making plans for water storage. Its time you stop your tree hugging and care for all of the people of Ca. when did the few have more say than the majority.
Sam says
All this is ,,,,,is another way for the water co. to make money of the backs of the people who own homes.
Dede says
We had a 69% cut back for our 2,500 sq ft home on 1/2 and acre with 4 people while our rental home of 1,000 sq ft and a single male who has lived there for 5 years with xeriscape in the front and back had EXACTLY THE SAME target rate. How is this a 32% cut back from 2013 usage? The water district didn’t do any calculations. They just put the same numbers down for every residence. We have already taken out grass and use shower water we collect in a bucket to water the planters. We started cutting back years ago. There is only so much conserving one family can do.
brian says
I too want to be part of the solution however its more like a 47% cut and to top it off those of us at had cut back years ago are now being asked to cut from a already lowered period.
William says
Where’s moll flanders? Is she still looking for a ‘context’?
Jason h says
residential water use in California is like 15% of total use. The rest is farming, industrials and commercial use. I’m pretty sure residential cutting back even 30% is pretty pointless versus its share of usage.
Tim Scott says
While accurate enough, this misses the point of the problems with residential use.
One problem is that residential use is the main growth area in the water usage. By attacking residential use, with the attendant controversy and publicity, you get some push back against further development. It is nowhere near as effective as the water resource development fees that we should be charging to developers when they convert desert into neighborhoods at huge profits, but those developers have too much political clout for that.
The second problem with residential use is that it is the only thing that can be targeted without adverse consequences. Would you rather cut down on your water use at home, or be laid off as a result of cutting water use at your workplace?
dumbandblind says
Each second this is delayed millions of gallons are wasted by irresponsible people.
AR says
I’m all for conserving, but my targets were completely miscalculated. Instead of a 32% cut, it was greater than 60%.
Lou Jobs says
Clueless comment without any intelligence or date behind it. 80% of the water in California is used by Agriculture! Even if residential scaled back 80% the impact would be minimal! Do some math.