3 ms·

Bel Air's water source is located such that it could supply water to the entire Los Angeles area. Yes, getting it over to Apple Valley would be a bit of a stret

Bel Air's water source is located such that it could supply water to the entire Los Angeles area. Yes, getting it over to Apple Valley would be a bit of a stretch, but you are seriously suggesting that 30k gallons/day in Los Angeles (also desert; contrary to your implication) is OK if you are sitting right next to a reservoir? California water districts aren't too forthcoming on information about exact sources of water; Bell Air's reservoir seems to be in the process of decommissioning and Wikipedia claims it is bypassed by a direct link to the LA aqueduct. The source for the LA aqueducts are much further away from LA than Apple Valley is. It might make more sense for everyone to get a daily ration of water. More water than the ration may be used, but you'd need to pay for it, and anyone who used less than their ration should receive a rebate from those who used more than their share.

curun1r 11y ago
> but you are seriously suggesting that 30k gallons/day in Los Angeles (also desert; contrary to your implication) is OK if you are sitting right next to a reservoir? I specifically said it doesn't make it right for some people to ignore the drought and use that much water. But the point was that the district was meeting its conservation quotas, so it wasn't issuing fines. It's not some conspiracy to let Bel Air residents use more water because they're rich. It just makes sense that if the drought conditions are not as severe for a certain district, it would react differently to people who use too much water. As I also laid out, I do think there should be some state-wide solidarity fine even in places with access to more water. The money collected could go towards some of the billions the state wants to spend on drought preparedness (there was a ballot initiative last year). > It might make more sense for everyone to get a daily ration of water. It might make sense for everyone in a district to get their daily ration of water (averaged over the course of the month), but it doesn't make sense to set a global ration when certain districts need to set lower per-capita usage than others.

curun1r 11y ago

> but you are seriously suggesting that 30k gallons/day in Los Angeles (also desert; contrary to your implication) is OK if you are sitting right next to a reservoir? I specifically said it doesn't make it right for some people to ignore the drought and use that much water. But the point was that the district was meeting its conservation quotas, so it wasn't issuing fines. It's not some conspiracy to let Bel Air residents use more water because they're rich. It just makes sense that if the drought conditions are not as severe for a certain district, it would react differently to people who use too much water. As I also laid out, I do think there should be some state-wide solidarity fine even in places with access to more water. The money collected could go towards some of the billions the state wants to spend on drought preparedness (there was a ballot initiative last year). > It might make more sense for everyone to get a daily ration of water. It might make sense for everyone in a district to get their daily ration of water (averaged over the course of the month), but it doesn't make sense to set a global ration when certain districts need to set lower per-capita usage than others.