4 ms·

What percentage? Under 1%? Of that, the lawn gets a lot more than showers, or more ridiculously, a glass of water.

• dgacmu 10y ago
  20% urban: https://www.kcet.org/commentary/drought-by-the-numbers-where-does-california-water-go https://www.kcet.org/commentary/drought-by-the-numbers-where... (that's residential + business + government). For residential, "Landscaping accounts for nearly half of all residential water use." Notably, most of the restrictions were on watering lawns, which isn't crazy as one part of a bigger picture water conservation strategy. It's not going to work miracles, but it could conceivably cut total statewide water use by 1-2%. (With a goal to cut statewide water use by 20%, that's not actually an insignificant amount. Obviously, there's a ton of agricultural use remaining to be reduced.) The Palo Alto restrictions, for example: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47322 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/473... Several of these make sense: 2. Flooding or runoff is prohibited. 3. A shut-off valve is required for hoses used to wash vehicles, buildings, etc. 4. Applying water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. 5. Water in fountains or other decorative water feature must be recirculated. 6. Irrigating outdoors is prohibited during and within 48 hours after a measurable rainfall. 9. Irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians is prohibited. 10. Landscape irrigation for new development must comply with state and local building codes. 11. Leaks must be fixed as soon as possible. Some are fairly stupid: 7. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request.
  • whamlastxmas 10y ago
    Your source for 20% says that 20% is a "conventional estimate" and doesn't seem to provide a source for that estimate. It seems pretty high compared to other numbers I've seen.
    • dgacmu 10y ago
      Acknowledged - I didn't shop around carefully for primary sources for my link. I think the overall point holds even if you drop it to 10%, though -- there's probably 1% of overall water use to be trimmed through the more-effective residential cutbacks. (It's worth distinguishing between potable and non-potable water in these analyses, though, because from a municipal perspective, there are additional benefits to keeping a cap on potable water use.)
  • greeneggs 10y ago
    > Some are fairly stupid: 7. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. I think the idea is to raise awareness of the problem, especially among tourists. Or maybe restaurants just prefer not to have to set water out, so they can sell more drinks? Either way, I can't say it bothers me much.
    • fiatmoney 10y ago
      "Raising awareness" is stupid. What are they supposed to do in response, and how much water would that save?
    • hueving 10y ago
      Why would anyone care about raising awareness among tourists? They are amongst the smallest users of water (only in the state for a short period, no lawn to water, no crops to grow).
    • rhino369 10y ago
      As a tourist in SF in last January what exactly could I have done to help the situation? Buy a rice farm and shut it down? Drinking tap water is the most efficient use of water possible.
  • rconti 10y ago
    The idea that anyone simply LEAVES THE HOSE RUNNING while washing their car, or uses a fountain that constantly pours fresh water, simply astounds me
• whamlastxmas 10y ago
  According to this [1] about 10%. Their goal was to reduce urban use by 25%, meaning a total reduction of 2.5%. [1] http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108