I use almost no outside water because I not only have a drought tolerant front lawn it is watered from my rain barrels. The only EBMUD water I use outside is on a couple of trees once a week.

I've been using stored rainwater since 2009, so if I lived in Pleasanton, my 4 year water consumption would be very low. I shouldn't be penalized for thinking ahead.

Rather than setting a % to reduce water usage, Pleasanton and/or Zone 7 should set a maximum amount allowed. That way water savers won't be "punished," and it would save Mr. Smith's time from all of the water savers contacting him for exceptions.


Roz

Roz efforts are to be admired. I envy Roz efforts and the hard work.

I accept and take the City's conservation declaration seriously.
In 2013 when I was asked to voluntarily reduce 25%. I did so,
exceeded the 25% request.

In 2014 I was asked to reduce a mandatory 25%. I did so,
I exceeded that request.

My lawns are dead, my 14 fruit trees are producing fruit that is really scrawny. My garden is a ghost of what it was previous years.

I'm interested on hearing about the "next steps" to be taken by the city as this drought continues into next year. When does the current 25% reduction end? Does this continue indefinitely or have other plans been formulated. I have heard that the city has already decided that if this rainy season is either average or below, that there will be a ban on all outside watering. Is this correct?

I'm glad that the city doesn't have a golf course, and have to truck over thousands of gallons of water to keep the greens green.

That would just make them hypocrites, while my lawn dies out.

I totally agree with Roz. If we set a maximum usage limit per household, then they can decide how water to use and how to spend that water. The 25% reduction is unfair in my humble opinion. The reason being, if a resident used quite a bit last year or had a pool etc., it becomes easy for them to get the 25% reduction, while someone who had already using water sparingly and wisely, finds it very difficult to get an additional 25% on top. How is that fair?

Also, for residents who did not have prior usage history, I am not sure how the city is determining how much water is reasonable - it is based on property size, number of people in the household, average of a similar property... When I asked this question, I never got a response from the City

I think that the penalty is really pushing things a little bit far don't you think! I'm sure that people are trying their best to conserve water. But if you're going to make people pay a fine for it, how much more can they squeeze their circumstances if they are already at bordering the minimum amount of consumption for their families to get by? Surely there are other penalties like a tiered unit charge instead of a flat out fine that might be a better solution Web Link to the problem?

I think that you're being entirely right in your article here considering that there are a lot of factors that need to be taken into consideration in each and every household's different circumstances. I personally feel that those people who don't use a lot of water or are smart enough to know how to conserve water or reuse water my treating or holding rain in storage Web Link should be rewarded instead of penalizing! The utilities guys had better do something to streamline their definitions soon since it has come to a point that everyone is questioning their process!

I have heard that the city has officially chosen that if this stormy season is either normal or underneath, that there will be a prohibition on all outside watering. Additionally, for inhabitants who did not have earlier utilization history, I am not certain how the city is deciding how much water is sensible it depends on property measure, number of individuals in the family unit, normal of a comparable property.