3 ms·
> Even within the already small residential slice, regulations are weird. When my parents lived in the LA area, they had a large swimming pool and an irrigated
by tablespoon 5y ago
> Even within the already small residential slice, regulations are weird. When my parents lived in the LA area, they had a large swimming pool and an irrigated lawn but were required to have ultra low flush toilets. The amount of water saved by those toilets (which often required multiple flushes to empty the bowl of waste) paled in comparison with the government approved swimming pool and sprinkler systems.
How so? Pretty much everyone there has a flush toilet that they use all the time, while I'd imagine pools are much rarer (and also not drained/filled with each use). Toilets also essential items that last decades, so it takes a long time to phase in any updates to their standards (especially compared to lawn-watering regulations). It wouldn't surprise me that going to low flush toilets would save more water (across the whole population, over the long run) than banning pools would.
- SamBam 5y agoAn uncovered pool loses thousands of gallons of water a month due to evaporation. More so in a bit and dry climate.
- diggernet 5y agoAs bad as that sounds, all that water (plus all the water used on residential lawns) is included in the 3-5% of California's water that goes to residential use. You could drain every pool in the state and barely touch the total water consumption. And as DannyBee mentioned above, per-capita water use has already been cut 30% over the last 20 years. You could shut off all residential water supplies entirely, to cut residential use by 100%, and still only reduce total water consumption by 5% at most. Pools aren't the problem. Lawns aren't the problem. Residential use isn't the problem.
- throwaway2037 5y agoIs an uncovered pool still legal in California?
- SamBam 5y agoSure. I was just in San Diego and then in Palm Springs, in the desert. All the pools I saw were uncovered.