CA’s New Mandatory Water Conservation Rules Punish Inland Cities and Agriculture

California’s drought conditions are actually historically normal. So are our occasional heavy wet winters – Despite Gavin Newsom’s moldy talking point that there is a climate crisis in California and the state is facing “a more extreme future.”

It’s not hard to plan for droughts and wet years – if politicians were honest. But Newsom’s goal isn’t to deliver more water to the people – it’s to thrust the state into a permanent water crisis.

Remember these figures: 50% of California’s water supply goes to environmental uses right off the top. Of the remaining 50%, urban use is only 10% and agriculture uses 40%.

State water officials and legislators are once again talking about water conservation-only priorities while water storage projects are perpetually delayed.

Two weeks ago the California State Water Resources Control Board issued statewide water restrictions. The title of their document even says this:

Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment of
Proposed Making Conservation a California Way of
Life Regulation

“The measures are substantially weaker than a previous proposal after an onslaught of criticism. But they will still save enough water through 2050 to supply the state’s entire population for a year, at a cost of $4.7 billion,” CalMatters reported.

That may be accurate but constant conservation seems to only hurt agriculture and cities and towns in inland California. Even CalMatters acknowledged the truth in the title of an article Friday:

Hot, inland California cities face the steepest water cuts with new conservation mandate

And the CalMatters summary says the quiet part aloud: “Urban water agencies serving a third of Californians won’t need to cut use, while Central Valley and desert cities face the most cuts.”

Here’s where they unfortunately abdicate reporting, spreading propaganda:

“Facing a future of shortages, California is entering a new phase of water conservation: Cities and towns must meet new mandates ramping down use over the next 15 years — and some will be hit harder than others.”

Here is one example of water use and restrictions in Northern California the Globe has reported:

Sacramento has a Mediterranean climate with dry hot summers and mild winters. The Sacramento region is covered by approximately 75 percent of grasslands, more than 20 percent crops, and about two percent forest land. Average Sacramento temperatures swing from a low of 38 degrees in January, to a high of nearly 100 degrees in July.

San Francisco occupies the tip of a peninsula halfway up the coast of Northern California, surrounded on three sides by bodies of water.

While Sacramento is arid, dry and flat, San Francisco is laid out in a grid over more than 40 hills, which causes wide variations in temperature and sky conditions in different places in the area. San Francisco’s average temperature swing is significantly less dramatic than Sacramento, from a low of approximately 55 degrees, to an average high of just 65 degrees.

Of course San Francisco residents use less water than Sacramento Valley residents.

And here is why we said to remember these figures: 50% of California’s water supply goes to environmental uses, 10% is urban use, and agriculture 40%.

Demanding additional conservation from urban water users – residential homes, small, medium and large businesses – is a non-starter because urban water use is the smallest amount of water accounted for. Restricting even more water from urban and ag users doesn’t even move the needle, but does make a lot of lives much worse off.

“Environmental uses” is water flows to the San Francisco Bay into the Pacific Ocean. These are half of the state’s water.

All of the charts and graphs by the State Water Resources Control Board and comparisons to Australia and Denmark “for context” do not change the fact that California, under Gov. Gavin Newsom, is being destroyed one destructive policy at a time.

…urban water use trends in two affluent and industrialized nations – Australia and
Denmark – provide useful examples. Total urban water use in Australia averaged 100 GPCD in 2020, with residential water use accounting for a little over half of total use in most metropolitan areas (Bureau of Meteorology 2022). In Denmark, total urban water use averaged 42 GPCD in 2021, with residential water use accounting for a little over two-thirds of total use (DANVA 2022)

No one in California cares about water use in Denmark or Australia. California’s water projects were built and designed to provide a steady 5-7 year supply of water for the entire state, even in drought years.

But Newsom and the water police have created policies to deny the people water – and we are supposed to be grateful for it according to CalMatters:

“The costs of the regulations, largely expected to be passed onto customers, are estimated to reach $4.7 billion through 2050. But state analysts expect the benefits for customers and water suppliers, largely from purchasing less water, will outweigh the costs of funding conservation programs by about $1.4 billion.” (emphasis CA Globe)

Shut up and show your appreciation serfs!

Another example: the proposed outdoor residential water restriction is a 20% cut until 2035, when it would then increase to 37% percent, and then increase again to 45% water cuts in 2040. Under a more aggressive cut in water use, the outdoor residential water use standard would be cut immediately 37% by 2030, and then cuts would increase to 45% in 2040. Under another alternative, the outdoor residential water use standard would be cut by 37% percent in 2035 but would not decrease again afterwards.

Read this about the indoor proposed water cuts – language right out of George Orwell’s 1984:

Numerous options exist for suppliers to reduce water consumption to achieve compliance. Urban water conservation programs in California include incentives for increased indoor fixture efficiency and outdoor water conservation, education, targeted messaging programs for acute demand reductions such as during drought, and community-based efforts that engage local nonprofits.

The Governor’s and State Water Resources Control Board’s new water policy restrictions will likely force municipal water suppliers to reduce the amount of water they provide up to 40% over the next 15 years – or be fined up to $10,000 a day. Water districts can reduce customer water use by mandating restrictions, raising rates on high-volume water users, or encouraging low-flow appliances.

 “Our climate has changed. Our uses should match the hydrology that we’re now facing,” Joaquin Esquivel, the water board chairman said in a statement.

E. Joaquin Esquivel, a former Legislative aid to U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer was appointed to the State Water Resources Control Board by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017, named chairman by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019, and reappointed to the board by Newsom in 2021.

Esquivel is no expert in water use. He’s a longtime bureaucrat, dutifully making detrimental water policy at the behest of the left.

The same goes with SWRCB Board member Dorene D’Adamo, who jumped from the California Air Resources Board to the water board.

At least board member Sean Maguire is a registered civil engineer.

Board member Laurel Firestone, activist, was appointed to the State Water Resources Control Board in 2019 and reappointed by Gov. Newsom, co-founded and co-directed the Community Water Center, a statewide non-profit environmental justice organization.

Board member Nichole Morgan was appointed as the civil engineer to the State Water Resources Control Board by Governor Gavin Newsom in June 2021.

These are the people, who at the behest of the governor and the radical left, are slashing California’s water supply, preventing the people and agriculture from getting what they need. You have to ask yourself why.