Californians facing $500 a day water fines

July 11, 2014

water2After very few Californians listened to Gov. Jerry Brown plea to conserve water, the state is poised to slap water wasters with fines of up to $500 a day. [Mercury News]

The state Water Resources Control Board is set to consider implementing new regulations next week that would permit up to $500 a day fines for landscape watering that runs off from the area of landscaping, using water to clean hard surfaces such as walkways, washing automobiles without shut off nozzle on a hose or using non-recirculated fountains. Indoor water usage will not be effected.

After Brown asked Californians to voluntarily cut water usage by 20 percent, Californians cut their water usage by only 5 percent.

The proposed rules also require urban water suppliers to implement plans to restrict customers’ outdoor water use if they haven’t done so already. Agencies that do not comply face fines of up to $10,000 per day.

About 4 percent of California’s urban water is used to irrigate landscaping.


I look at it (dams etc.) this way. When you are driving your car and see a sign that says next gas 100 miles or you aren’t sure when next station is, you fill the tank to get you to the next stop. Well seeing as we are classified as a desert and deserts aren’t predictable, wouldn’t it make sense to have enough in the tank to get you to the next time rain comes?


Don’t you think its time for some de sal plants , you stupid people in sac have the biggest supply of water at your doorstep , get a clue


ah, i see an opportunity for our lovely city to institute a new program of revenue ‘enhancements’…

Bring on the water Nazi’s!


Meanwhile in Paso, more grapes are being planted…more hotel rooms are being built…more housing developments are being approved…


How about putting meters on all customers in the state. In the valley, residents don’t have water meters. In todays society every customer getting water from a source (city, district, dam, reservoir, etc.) should have a water meter. The individual drillers should not because the pay electric, treating, storage, maintenance and if they run out, they have the burden to supply their own water. Other than individual drillers, everyone else should be monitors and NO FLAT RATES. You use, you pay!


Too bad those in Sacramento don’t get this excited when it comes to cutting other forms of waste….


You mean like their salaries and pensions?


One has to wonder how the taxpayers of California feel when told of this newly proposed fine after witnessing the Hearst Castle-Lady Gaga debacle that wasted 365,000 gallons of water, NOT including the 5,000 gallons of water leaking out of the pool daily.

I guess what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander.


50%+/- Ag Use

10%+/- Urban Use

40%+/- Environmental

Typical – lets focus on the little guy.

I understand Ag is necessary and extremely important to the economy and they have received some reduction in allocations, but RWQCB needs to focus on their irrigation practices rather than a nozzle on an urban home. Oh That’s right…….the RWQCB gets owned bythe Ag Community whenever they propose regulations. Nevermind, back to the little guy.


“About 4 percent of California’s urban water is used to irrigate landscaping”. oh really? i read elsewhere it was 50%. here goes the numbers games again. i don’t think there is an issue; after the gummit chases out all the businesses there will be plenty of water.

20% cut. is that realitic? is the Brown real?


It may be time that someone address the truck loads of water that ranchers are hauling to their ranches because they are out, and in turn drying up the areas that the water is being hauled from.

I understand that they have a lot of $$ invested in trees and can afford to haul water, but what about the individuals with a well that is going dry and may not be able to afford drilling a new well.


Dumb comment. For one, you are making it seem like the ranchers are STEALING the water from somewhere and making some poor soul’s well go dry. Also, “they have a lot of money invested in TREES and can AFFORD to truck water”? Would you mind telling me WTH that was supposed to mean? The disheartening thing is the 19 “likes” your dumb post got.


You know this really irradiates me. Not the water, Brown. He has been having a tantrum about not cutting water. He keeps talking about how we cut 20% when he asked us in his first term back in ’77.

As I have stated in other related articles, it was easier back then as we didn’t have low flow or drip irrigation as a normal process. We didn’t have water saving toilets, showers, sinks, dishwashers, washing machines etc.

Well guess what Jerry, a lot of us now have that. I for one have always watched my water use, because I don’t want the high bills period but I know it isn’t just me. Most I know are pretty conservative on water.

Here is the irony. He says he doesn’t want to see runoff from landscaping and yet it goes on to say that only 4% of urban water is used for landscaping. So the remainder would have to be a lot of the water used in your house right? Well as I listed most are using low flow already. Mr. Brown where are we to get this? This to me is nothing more than another way to keep fleecing the CA. taxpayer.

So my point is you keep whining about 5%. I think that is pretty good to wring out of usage today when you think about the fact that we have all gone to all these methods and it isn’t as easy to find excess to cut today as it was in ’77.


Here’s a novel idea, how about more water sources? Dams etc? Before I get all the………….see you just want more water crowd, again as I have stated before, we haven’t added new dams in years to this state but have added 15 million more people in meantime. Simple math people.


Dams are not water sources, they only store the river water. No rain or snow, no rivers. Do the math.


Well DUH!! Oh and no dams, then when rain comes it just flows to rivers and then back to ocean. Do the math.


real good point; we have already picked the low lying fruit.

as far as statistics think of this. take a zone that is on sewer & meter. measure the water across the meter and then measure the water across the lift (pumping) stations. i already did this for one city. that might solve the 4 vs 50 gap.