How do apartment landlords enforce the 25% reduction for the tenants? I assume that there are not meters for each individual unit, so the heavy users are not identifiable. So, the landlord may be fined for not conserving and pass on the cost to tenants evenly, but really can't do anything to ensure a 25% reduction. Does anyone know what measures apartment landlords will take to reduce the water consumption?

Someone needs to check their math. A 25% reduction from 187 gallons per day is 140 gallons per day, a 47 gallon reduction.

Yes, Apartments is right, apartment dwellers are among the worst abusers. No lawn or outside plants to water, no driveways to wash off, they tend to turn on the bathtub spigot and let water run all day long. The city really needs to do something about this.

The real targets according to Daniel Smith -- "It's the heavy users Smith is targeting, especially those who use hundreds of gallons potable drinking water to irrigate large lawns."

Well, let's think who that would be? How about Calippe golf course right here is Pleasanton? They piss drinking water all over the lawns because heaven knows, golfers cannot be inconvenienced by brown grass.

Then there are the Castlewood and Ruby Hill golf courses as well as every park and street median in Pleasanton. If Pleasanton would STOP POURING DRINKING WATER on all of the grass in this town no one would need ever fear a water shortage.

If they want all of us to cooperate they need to lead by example. I have always conserved water, to an extreme. Cutting back 25% from last year is not even a possibility as there were several times in 2013 when I used only 1 unit of water for the entire 2 month cycle. The good news for me is that I can afford any surcharges and at this point I just don't care to make any further efforts.

It would be very interesting to know what the average residential consumer usage is in Pleasanton. I would like to know where I fit in the picture.

My last two bills don't indicate previous years useage. How do we know what the target is or how we are doing to meet the goal?

I'm always willing to pitch in and help, but I've also long wondered if my conservation and sacrifice is negated, indeed dwarfed by entities that use hundreds of times the amount I save.

I remember back when we were being asked not to use electricity, basically during business hours, yet businesses had their air conditioners blasting and their displays functioning. I certainly understand the concept of prioritizing economic activity over private use, but I thought at the time it might be nice if the larger customers exerted a bit more effort to at least giving the impression that they were cutting back as well.

I really don't mind letting my flowers whither and my lawn turn brown because they don't matter much in the balance of life. On the other hand, why should I be asked to lower the QOL of my space to ensure that our local golf course greens are, well, green?

(Conflict of interest declaration: I am not a golfer. Then again, I'm not much of a gardener either.)

Mike

"How do we know what the target is . . ."

A new "Utility Billing Web Portal" was mentioned last night. I went on the City's site today and registered. Here's the location:

Web Link

Under "Billing History", "View detailed history", bills go back to 2012.

According to the meeting last night the city is going to compare the units used from the billing period of April, 17, 2013 to June, 12, 2013, to the same billing period this year (April-June 2014). Billing periods noted are mine, yours may be different.

note: I had a little trouble registering because my account is so old, but called the hotline 925-931-5504; they were very responsive and fixed the issue within a short period of time.

How can they compare from April 17, when the rule passed yesterday?

@mooseturd I believe the average usage is 15 units per household = 11,220 gallons. Re the comment about the golf courses, I think, but not sure, that they all use reclaimed water.

for Andrew-- they DO NOT use reclaimed water on golf courses. That will not happen for several years according to the city. They are still wasting drinking water on the golf courses and have simply cut back by 25% the amount of drinking water that they waste on the golf courses. They also do not use reclaimed water on grass median strips or parks. Just look at where the water comes from; out of the sprinklers, not from a water truck. There are no pipes in place to use reclaimed water anywhere yet. And we all know how important it is to keep those medians, parks and golf courses green at the expense of drinking water for the humans.

Are people even reading the story?

For those who say they've already conserved as much as they can:
--"We're hoping not to have to penalize any customer," Smith told the council. "Anyone who has already been carefully curbing their consumption can contact us for a review and we'll waive any penalty. Obviously, someone who has been using very little water all along deserves our praise, not a penalty."--

For those who want the city to recycle water for landscaping:
--Pleasanton also is moving rapidly to add to its recycling water system, which is now in place in Staples Ranch. The start of Phase One of a $14.8-million system to serve Hacienda, Sports Park, Callippe and other parks and open space is awaiting environmental review now along with an application for a 1% interest, 30-year loan from the state to buy and install the pipes. They will be connected to a recycling system already in place at the Dublin San Ramon Services District treatment plant at I-680 and Stoneridge Drive.

Although the use of recycled water for public lands will reduce the use of potable drinking water, it won't be widely available for another year and even then, won't solve Pleasanton's water shortage if the statewide drought continues.--

Yes, the city should have established water recycling years ago, but at least it's working on it. (I would argue that the state overall needs to follow Orange County's lead, and recycle to drinking water: Web Link

And personally, I support the city's efforts to keep public amenities like parks and sports fields (yes, including the golf course) in functional condition for the many people that use them. IMO, that's a better use of water than preserving my largely ornamental landscaping.

Jeez, we installed a water efficient clothes washer a few months ago, but before that we didn't have one at all, so the actual usage probably went up... This is going to be a hard restriction to meet...

People who do not conserve will get fined and pay higher prices. For the wealthy, big deal. (I'm not implying that all wealthy people will not conserve.) What really needs to happen is to cap the amount of water a household can use. You exceed that amount and your water is turned off.

Is a letter going to be sent to all households regarding the 25% reduction? [removed] Also, how many gallons of water did I use last year and how am I suppose to figure out how many gallons of water I use daily. Seems like this has been poorly put together.

How do you manage a water reduction compared to last year when the number of people in the household doubled since then?

@Maggi, again, read the story:

"As for large families, especially those whose size has increased since a year ago, and for new homeowners where there's no history of water use, Smith's department will consider adjustments in the required reductions in consumption."

Call the utilities division and talk to them about your situation.

Phase 1...mandatory 25% water reduction complete. Phase 2...raise rates 40% to offset phase 1 to be announced soon.

Time to conserve no matter what we think or what feel....

If August comes around and we are out of water we are out of water. If we fall below fire control water levels they can go to an odd even day of water usage... They can cut the flow!

I was at Tueday's meeting and the water Rep. Mr. Smith is all over the situation and I have total faith in him to manage this issue.....

It is Time to act and not whine and complain! You can be part of the solution NOW or be part of the on-going problem.

If Global Warming is really real this could be an issue for decades to come!

Get on it NOW!

It is not fair to the families who have always been very conservative on water usage, and already cut down water usage to bare bone for two years. Where they can cut down 25% more?

Potable water in TEXAS! Web Link

We need to restrict the number of people in this town. Too many people and not enough water.

not possible to limit numbers of people...i'm curious to hear your plan...tee hee...it's bound to FAIL!

For those of you worried about Castlewood Country Club, we have our own water system and do not use city of Pleasanton water.

Yep, everyone cut back on your water usage so we can have enough water to supply all the new units being built. If mandatory water rationing is required then there should be no new residential units built...period!
If we don't have enough for those here now seems pretty stupid to add more people to use the water we don't have!

At one time Pleasanton had a condition of approval of all new developments that they could not start the project if there was mandatory water rationing in affect. Does anybody know if that is still the standard practice?

country club folks...what is your "own" water system?

please explain the source of your water...(Comment partially removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

The condition of approval of all new developments was in affect if we were on mandatory water rationing. We are not, we have been asked to reduce by 25%. That's how they can get away with the new building.
And it's a crock! If we don't have enough for 'us' how are we going to have enough for 'them'?

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

Frances, read the article again. Looks like mandatory water rationing to me.

NOBODY ACTUALLY OWN WATER.

get those cute little pink cups ready for recycled sewage water...it has been purified so there is nothing to fear (but fear itself...and i mean it!)

Correction: NOBODY ACTUALLY OWNS THE WATER...i rest my case...

@Uncle Gator: It doesn't take global warming for this to be the "new" normal. Historically, California droughts last for an average of 70 years. That's what the tree rings tell us.

Meteorologists are predicting an El Nino pattern starting later this year. Those of you old enough to recall the 70's and the claims of the coming ice age, will also remember what happens during an El Nino year: lots of precipitation.
Of course, the 'climate disruption' zealots will claim that the copious rainfall is due to man and not natural cycles that have always occurred, just like the current drought is a sign from allah that the world is ending.

My water consumption is always a little over 10 CF between Dec & Apr every year. I don't water my lawns until the beginning of May. If my understanding is correct, once I turn the sprinklers on (ones every 3 days) I'm going to be on the List.

I'm calling on all SENIOR CITIZENS to report all citizens that you observe wasting water.

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

What's funny is that I live in an apartment complex, and as soon as I heard that the council had passed the 25% thing, I started wondering... Yesterday, we were notified that our office park is cutting waaaaay back. So, I called my property manager. She said she won't do anything till the water company sends a formal notification. The thing is, our water is bundled in with sewer and garbage, so I have no idea how much water I use, only that I hardly use any - my son moved out about a year ago, and I hate laundry. So what am I supposed to do? And I know I'm not the only one in this situation...

Just checked my usage from April 17, 2013 to June 12, 2013 and we used 47 units. My current bill says we used 23 units.
So we used 50% less than last year.
Are they telling me that I have to cut that 47 units by 25%? According to the current bill its 50% less now.

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

I looked at the City rules and I'm supposed to water on odd days of the month only. Unfortunately my sprinkler timer only supports a weekly cycle so one week I'll be in compliance and the next week out. I then looked up my past water bills on the city site and it only lists my total bill and not my water consumption. Most of my bill consists of fixed charges that are completely unrelated to water use. Sigh. I expected a better approach from the city. Seems like it would make more sense to figure the average usage per household and then set the target to be 25% less than that. That way people who are using less are OK and people who use more may have much further to go than 25%.

Does anyone know if the City actually has to pay for their water use? Seems like they could be the largest consumer of water in the city. Are they going to the same watering restrictions as well?

Dave.... Are they going to the same watering restrictions as well? I seriously doubt it.
I'd like to see some figures for water usage by the city!

All of these golf courses (including Castlewood) need to completely turn off the faucet except for the greens. Swimming pools including the aquatic center and pool clubs need to be drained. Watering of public parks, median, city property stopped.

Faireness....not one of those things is going to happen!

Dave posted: "I then looked up my past water bills on the city site and it only lists my total bill and not my water consumption."

On the bill, in the box under "Water or Sewer Emergencies", you should find your: location, read dates, meter no., size, current read, prior read, and current use. Each unit of "current use" equates to 748 gallons of water.

As stated in the article, "Water units used are shown on the statement, with every unit equaling 748 gallons. If the bill shows 15 units used, that means the customer has consumed 11,220 gallons."

In order to determine how much water was used daily, use the following formula:
# of units X 748 = # gallons used during billing period (60 days)
now take the # gallons used during billing period and divide by 60 (days) and you have the number of gallons used per day.

To determine a daily 25% reduction, take the number of gallons used per day X .25
Or, to determine the reduction for the billing period, take the # gallons used during billing period X .25


Carol posted: "Are they telling me that I have to cut that 47 units by 25%? According to the current bill its 50% less now."

Carol, see Jill's post on May 8th, or the original article.

Not fair. We have very low water usage last year. It will be very difficult for me to save more.

It is very unfair to ask for a 25% reduction when a household has been in a conservation mode over several years. The 25% reduction plan benefits only the heavy users. e.g. - if my average use is 16 units I would be required to reduce consumption to 12 units. My neighbor whose average consumption for the same size property and family is 32 units would be reduced to 24 units. So, my usual 16 unit consumption would be penalized but neighbor's usage of 24 units (double my allowance) would not be penalized... By the way Mr. Smith's offer of a review, according to the report, would only address the penalty and not the increased cost for over-consumption.

A much better solution and fair to all would be to restrict each household to a set amount and start applying rate increases and penalties when the allocation is exceeded.

Just out of curiousity- my kids have been away at college- so, when they come home for the summer, and my water bill increases because the size of my household increases, will there be some consideration for the fact that they aren't using water in another city in NorCal?

So, I haven't received any notification concerning a mandatory 25% water reduction and it's now May 12th. Since this was "immediate" as of May 7th, how are they planning to get the word out?

Does Daniel Smith think that he can make a decree, and we magically hear it? Not all of us read the local paper, or keep up with every bit of news. When will we receive a notice in the mail?

Last year I watered zero while I switched over my entire front yard to water friendly plants. I spent thousands to save water, and will now be penalized financially for it. And, my kids now have gone from showers every other day, to every day as mandated by middle school.

Thanks for the zero thought 25% reduction limit.

I'm totally screwed. I'll send my penalty bill to the clown council.

I just checked the Pleasanton Water System and Utility Billing web sites and there isn't even a notice there. Outside of the City Council vote, is information concerning this new requirement available anywhere else?

Shouldn't they make dramatic requirements like this effective at some date in the future so they can provide information to the public before the law goes into effect?

Desert Gardens: Web Link

Is this desert magic or what?

Brian has the best solution to the problem. Set amount of gallons depending on how many people live in the house. When is the City going to send a formal letter telling us exactly what the rules are. The patch says one thing and the city says another. Not one of my neighbors heard of this mandate. They don't read the patch. I would think the city was better run then this. No, I am not going to put cardboard on my lawn then cover it with mulch after I spend hundreds of dollars putting in a new lawn 2 years ago.

I have not received a notice about this. Not even the city website announces it. If I didn't read it here I wouldn't have known.
And how is the city going to handle all the complaints when people get their bills for this period and they have been penalized for not using the mandated 25% less.
I would think a notice would have been sent out to every household in the city.
And don't we have a right to know how much water the city is using and demand that they also cut back 25%. Which they could do by not flooding the streets in the middle of the night with the sprinklers!!

The most fair way is indexing occupants of a home and the square footage of a lot over the past 5 years.

@Sirena "Brian has the best solution to the problem. Set amount of gallons depending on how many people live in the house."

How is the water company going to find out how many people live at each house? Send out a questionnaire and rely on everyone responding and answering truthfully?

I think that the simplest way to implement this that has a reasonable (although not perfect) degree of fairness is simply to raise the water rates so that people will regulate their water use themselves. Adjust the rate levels so that they are high enough to induce a 25% reduction in water use for the community as a whole. As for the danger of setting water rates so high that people are squeezed out of using water for essential functions such as cooking, drinking, toilets, and showering, the answer is to use a stepped rate structure so that a certain minimum amount of water is priced at a relatively low rate, and then higher levels of water use (which presumably go to "non-essentials" such as pools, excessive lawn watering, etc.) are priced at relatively higher rates.

Perhaps not a "perfect" system but reasonably fair and very easy to implement.

PG&E already has this model with baseline usage and then different tiers where each tier above the baseline cost more money. That is probably the best system to use here also. When your usage is in the top tier, for electricity at least, it gets your attention and you will take the time to investigate ways to save.

California is always going to have droughts. Water is a resource that should be conserved whether you are in a drought or not. Having a pricing model that reflects this makes sense for the new rate structure and not on an as-needed basis. When you are using fines and then an appeal process, you are just complicating the matter. Just charge for usage with several tiers of costs based on usage and the problem self-regulates itself.

We called the city and were told the surcharge and fines kick in for the billing cycle AFTER the vote -- which begins June 1. All those with special circumstances like having not watered last year, or having more people in your household, should go to the city and ask for an exemption. My big question is for Bill . . . since when do the middle schools MANDATE daily showers for their students, and how on earth would they know? I think your kids are pulling one over on you. Tell them they can only shower every other day, or they can shower after gym class at school.

So for those of us who have always been very conservative in our water usage are now screwed. Our family has always tried to use as little potable water as we can by installing synthetic lawn and watering our plants and flushing our toilets with recycled water. We take 5-10 min showers and are very conservative in every way. Now we have to reduce our usage by another 25% or be penalized??? Our family of 4 uses half the water our neighbor with 2 people in the household (yes we compare our water bills and our's are less than half of their's). Let's not penalize those of us who have always been doing our part in conserving water. This is outrageous!

Concerning the daily showers....

Hygiene issues are usually discussed at middle school orientations. Perhaps daily showers aren't mandated, but I hope they're at least recommended. Anyone who's had an after-lunch class alongside adolescent boys in a small room could probably explain why. I think that students are not always given the option of showering after gym, because of time crunches.

Concerning the idea of raising water rates in order to decrease water consumption by 25%, it occurs to me that they'll have to raise water rates anyway even with the current plan of requiring everyone to reduce consumption by 25%. The water company has large fixed costs that it needs to continue to pay in order to continue operating (e.g., salaries) even if water consumption goes down by 25%. In order to prevent their revenue from plummeting by 25% they will be forced to raise the rate per unit of water.

Since water rates are destined to increase regardless of the path chosen, it seems that we may as well center the solution around water rate increases and institute a tiered water rate increase designed to bring overall consumption down by 25%.

I live across the street from a city park in Pleasanton, and the city consistently over waters their parks. The lawns are down right swampy to the point of me not even wanting to throw a ball for my dog on those lawns because she comes back with soaked muddy paws. (not to mention the people who rudely don't pick up after their dogs, but I digress...)
I have also seen their sprinklers watering nothing but the side walks.
My park was so bad I went to other city parks, only to find the same problem.
As of last night, this is still happening.
I live in a townhouse, and I have no lawn, I have been majorly conserving water since I moved in. I do laundry once per week, I use my dishwasher once per week, and don't even shower every day. How do I decrease my usage beyond not flushing the toilet? Why am I, in my 1000 sq ft home with no lawn going to pay the price for the sprawling mansions with huge yards and swimming pools who won't give a crap about an extra $25-$50 on their bill? Now I get penalized for being so conservative in the past? Something is not right here. While I agree we all need to conserve water, always has been a problem in CA, when is the city going to step up?

Kathy many of the larger lots and homes in pleasanton have put in wells the last few years so do not rely on city water. If you want to be upset with anyone be upset with your elected officials who continue to allow fresh water to flow into the bay and out into the ocean to protect the delta smelt.

Kathy K, the Val Vista park is being irrigated with recycled water. If that's not the park you're talking about, call 931-5504 and let the city know about the park that's being overwatered. I'm sure they'd appreciate knowing about it. Its pretty clear that watering is being cut back in some of the parks such as Fairlands as its noticeably dry.

Does the Sports Park use recycled water to keep these acres and acres green and swampy? Anyone know?

For Ellen -- no, the sport's park does not use reclaimed water. Call the city at 931-5504 to report that. There is no leadership in this city when they continue to use drinking water on parks and golf courses.

Back in 2009 I asked the city on the amount of water the Sports Park uses. In 2009 it was 48,000,000 gallons per year. That would equate to 131,500 gallons per day.

Not sure if that usage number is still correct since it was 5 years ago

Usage, it's probably more now!

I suggest that anybody found wasting water should be fined $5000 for violating the policy.

3 violations and they could be fined $20000 and housed at Santa Rita for 30 days.

NO MERCY.

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)

(Post removed by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff as irrelevant to this thread.)!

Well so much for years of conserving only to be penalized now when there isn't anything more to take away. We've installed new toilets, a new water heater, do our dishes only once a week, limit our laundry to once a week - 2 loads, water our lawn twice a week; have used an minimizing evaporizing system for our pool and take "military" showers - what more can we do?
How about setting standards for households rather than requiring a 25% reduction. Conservationists are getting a bad deal - only makes you want to hoard it when the faucets are ready to flow again.

While Mother Nature may be to blame for the lack of rain I think that also over building is a problem that has contributed to the problem. Is Pleasanton halting all new construction immediately to lessen the already heavy burden on the community?

A 25% reduction from where we were last year is not reasonable situation for any of us. We made a strong effort last year when it was suggested that voluntary reductions be utilized. We did so and now we are being punished for doing so as opposed to those who did not voluntarily reduce their water consumption. My efforts to voluntarily reduce water usage are basically ignored and have no consideration for the mandated 25% reduction currently facing us all. My starting point is based on an already honest effort to reduce while those who did not voluntarily reduce will benefit from not reducing last year. I will do everything I can to further reduce and meet the current 25% reduction but why are my past efforts not considered. The water crisis is apparent and if I'm to believe what the future holds for us all it most probably will be part of our lives in the future. My question is why do I not see any effort by the water czars to proactively address this issue. Where are the water projects to increase our storage facilities both above ground and below. California needs more of these projects now not later however they seem to better at dealing only with the now and not the future.

Let's look at the genesis of issues like this. First, we live in a socialist state that is left of Cuba. We have a leftist governor for life. Humans should have no more priority for use of resources than any other animal (our government is strangling agriculture such that our food sources will soon be other countries). And look at the local town councils, stuffed with realtors, developers and activists. The little "sleepy bedroom community of Pleasanton" has been turned into a jammed-up city and will soon be stuffed with even more housing. Not one sign of slowing down. There will NEVER be another reservoir built because the stinking sea lions are more important than people. History shows that we could easily experience several straight years of drought. Then what ?

who cares "then what?"

take a vacation...try to learn how to appreciate your life while you're still breathing...i rest my case...

I received a letter from the City today, May 16th, dated May 7th. I think some more clarification would help or the letter needs some tweaking.

First, I see we are required to reduce usage 25% and doesn't show how to find out in layman's term how to figure that number. I realize the numbers are online from previous years and it would be good to detail how the city will calculate that amount.

Meters are read every 2 months, it would be good to have the reading dates posted online similar to the PG%E reading schedule. Reading a meter is not rocket science and it would be good to post how to read the meter again.

Another item, the Severe Drought letter and the Pleasanton Water Conversation website do not address hand watering in the same way. I get the watering on alternate days similar to gas rationing in the 1970's, but that approach sure will have neighbor spying on neighbor. Isn't the fine enough?

Finally, put a brick in every toilet and shower with a friend, lol.

Past usage as a base is unfair to those of us who have spent a lot of money on drip irrigation, no lawn, etc. But if that is all they can do as a practical matter they should average several past years to get the basis of comparison to reduce the variability due to weather, people who were away on vacation a month last year but not this, etc.

It is very well to say that you can plead your case after they nail you, but they will be overwhelmed.

If you have a shower with a detachable wand, run it into a bucket while you warm up the water, and use the water for other purposes.

I agree with Old Guy and the other posters who have pointed out that the blanket reduction is an unfair way of implementing water rationing. I think that the Council went into panic mode and made a hasty decision without thinking through its implications.

We have finally received a letter informing us of the requirements - nine days after they were apparently put in place. The letter gives a hotline number, but there is no mention of the option to request a waiver, if one has special circumstances, or has long been making strenuous efforts to reduce water consumption. This means that only those who are well-informed, or who are militant enough to challenge a council directive will even find out that the waiver possibility exists. In other words, the weak and the meek. And, in many cases, the poor.

I think it appalling and very much hope that the Council will realize the inadequacies of the system they have selected and will explore fairer water rationing options. But I guess that's unlikely.

If the city really is over watering parks and they implement this rationing plan they will look like fools and should be reported in the news for their mismanagemt

I really resent that I'm in a tiny townhouse and similar to Kathy K. I was already as low as humanly possible. I only run my new dishwasher once a month, to keep the hoses from drying & cracking!!! I do a low light load and a low dark load in my clothes washing machine. I have never washed my car here.
I don't know where to cut 25%. Maybe 10%, penalizing singles with NOTHING to cut only serves to anger senior locals. I, like many seniors, always frugal no matter what, that's how I survive!!! Like always, one brush for all, always screws a group, usually the smallest budgets! There's MUCH greater 'play or slack' on the larger to start, unfair to tiny. Unfair! Shame on shallow 'powers that be'...not always the brightest! Maybe they weren't strong in math.

Stop with the whining. Everyone can cut 25%. It will just require effort. Besides I think after a month or so it will go to 50% or higher as the lakes hit empty.

Yesterday @ around 10:00AM noticed lady in front oh her house, wetting down her front lawn and had the facial expression of someone who does not give a heck.
Today @ around 9:30AM another home had lawn sprinklers running.

IS thier a reporting site for these issues?

(Post deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

Summer Jobs for TEENS: Hire them to ride about on bicycles and report anybody observed wasting water on their lawns and pretty little flowers.

Parents are always requesting summer jobs for their children.

how noble to report your friends/neighbors for wasting water...tee hee

Pay: $12 per hr.

put up or shut up!!!

SF has 10% voluntary reduction. San Ramon has no reduction.
Pleasanton arbitrarily decides to have mandatory 25% water cutback with steep fines. It is very clear that greedy Pleasanton has now created another source of revenue and another taxation method. Shame on Pleasanton City Council!
Absolutely a bunch of mindless clowns!
I guess writing traffic tickets on new drivers of high schools is not enough.

Pleasanton weekly, if it is true we are the only ones with restrictions please ask some questions of our public servants and find out why please........

(Post deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

(Post deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

With landscaping contributing to the value of one's home, I'm disappointed that the city simply mandated a 25% reduction without offering any possible alternatives to ease the mandate.
Something to consider: Why couldn't the city have some tanker trucks that would circulate the city, perhaps on a schedule such as garbage pick-ups, that contain the non potable water, and fill provided barrels to allow the homeowner the ability to retain their property values. This seems a little more reasonable than mandating a decrease in water usage without providing any alternative.

@Max: "Pleasanton arbitrarily decides to have mandatory 25% water cutback with steep fines. It is very clear that greedy Pleasanton has now created another source of revenue and another taxation method."

Different cities have different legal routes to obtain water. Some cities have better resources than Pleasanton, and some are much worse off. Some are farther ahead of the curve in coping with the shortages, while others are behind the curve. FWIW, Livermore has also instituted a similar cutback, so Pleasanton is not alone.

If residents do indeed reduce water usage, the water agency collects LESS revenue. Whether the fines make up for that or not appears to be up to us. Personally I view the fines as a steeping of the cost curve, impacting those who use more, which seems reasonable.

I agree with those who are frustrated that the "25% cuts for all" unduly penalizes those who had already been conserving.

One thing to consider is that California could provide ALL the residential water needs for the population, without any cuts, but it would require dramatically reducing the supply for agriculture, and that would probably drive a statewide recession. We may get a recession anyway. But if the tradeoff is between keeping the grass green here in town, or watching fellow residents go out of work, I'd prefer to keep the economy as healthy as possible and let the grass go brown.

I wonder why washing your car at home isn't one of the banned activities, even though much of the activity is otherwise banned. I watched a family soap up and wash down their two vehicles yesterday, mid-day. It was between 9am and 6pm--banned. The hardscape was wet--banned. There was water runoff-banned. Certainly the soap went into the sewer--which is marked with something like "goes to the Bay." The only hope is they don't hit the 25% reduction, and they end up paying all the fines.

The sad thing is there is plenty of water in the ocean and abundant energy and technology to take the sale out of it. Nuclear power using recycled fuel combined with desalination would fix all of this.

You people need to read up a bit on this issue. Look up the delta smelt and the impact on California water and how much fresh water just flows into the bay and then ocean. You will be amazed. Look up the voting records of Feinstein and boxer on California water issues. Kathleen, nothing is currently "banned" until the beginning of June. Look up the Resnicks and the 125,000 acres of farmland they own and how much water they use and more importantly the political sway they have in Sacramento. Don't blame your neighbors as the politicians want you to do but rather take a look at the big picture and question what you are being told.

how come so many whiners?

i strongly recommend that 500 local high students ride bikes about town spot the abusers and take down their addresses...report them to the proper authorities...problem solved...BUSTED! publish their names online!!!

i strongly recommend that the students all be paid $12 per hour + $1.00 if they report family friends and any neighbors who waste water.

i can hardly wait to read all about it!

No mercy for abusers!

Where does it say that the ban does not take effect until June? All I have heard and read is that the mandatory 25% reduction is effective as of May 7th. This from the letter sent out from the City of Pleasanton dated May 7th and with the utmost sincerity from the Mayor, City Council, City Manager, and City Staff.

I did not know a thing about it until I received the letter. The letter was dated May 7th. and I received it on May 17th. I called and asked how I could be help liable for penalties for using water that I did not know I was not supposed to use and was told the the penalties did not go into play until June 7th., or 30 days from the date of the letter notifying the citizens. That makes sense if there is really an issue. I still consider the whole thing to be crazy because there are only 3 sources of water around here, Alameda County, Hetch Hetchy, and well water. My son lives in Dublin and they are not on rationing, sister lives in Livermore and they are not on rationing, and my mother lives in Fremont and they are not on rationing so you tell me that something does not stink here? The surrounding cities and the entire state are not on rationing but little old Pleasanton is? Come on.

I am for conserving and have always done so but think something is wrong here and feel we need a better explanation otherwise seems like smoke is being blown up our..................

Better talk to your sister again. Livermore is absolutely on rationing. 30 or 35%

How would June 7 work. My billing period is April 14-June 14. May 7 doesn't make much sense, but June 7 is less so.

Irm

Show me the link because she and the city said Friday they are not on rationing.

Here is one perspective on desalination: Web Link It is expensive if no other reason is compelling . . . although it might make more sense to spend it on a water source rather than a bullet train in the central valley.

That article makes no mention of nuclear energy as the power source.

Was it supposed to mention nuclear energy? I was only looking for pros or cons of desalination.

Kathleen,

I think he was talking about using nuclear energy to supply power to the desalination plant. Actually not a bad idea and as you say much better than 100 billion for a train not needed. I heard or read somewhere California has not built a significant dam or resouvour in the last 40 years but the population of the state has more than doubled during that same period. The reason I mention this is because we should be able to reserve water during rainy periods when we have a drought. If it any consolation next year is expected to be an El Niño year.

Amazing what you can find: Web Link I thought I heard reservoirs were never at more than 80-85%, that those who decide would drain water otherwise. Driving through Niles Canyon I did often see "runoff" that didn't make sense (no recent rain). Appears some reservoirs are rethinking that based on the web data.

Kathleen

That is an interesting table and a frightening one at that. The one to watch is Shasta Lake. For it to be at only 51% of capacity in the middle of May is unheard of. In my view all the water being diverted into the bay and ocean needs to stop like right now. The environmentalists will go crazy but so be it. I have gone to Shasta Lake for the past 20 years in June and have never seen it that low. Honestly I am surprised that the entire state has not been put on a mandatory 25% reduction

This is a lot bigger than little old Pleasanton and Jerry needs show some leadership and soon. Pleasanton civic leaders need to do a much better job of communicating and sitting the right example. If they want the citizens to reduce 25% then they should do 50%

If city of Pleasanton is serious about water shortage, they should immediately disallow new home construction.
Find out what other cities are doing that allow them to have no restriction.
What’s up with these steep fines? We are not children! We know there is water shortage. We know its effect on our farms. I don’t need to hear it from bunch of stupid city council members coming up with arbitrary 25% reduction. Abusing their power and creating another source of revenue for themselves by having these foolish fines during these though times.
Personally, my water fountain is turned off, reduced the days, duration on sprinklers, get new sprinkler timer, put bricks in my toilet tanks, flush less.
It just robs me the wrong way, hearing these mandatory measures and steeps fines and creating another method of taxation. I hate these stupid clowns. Period!

But Shadow Cliffs remains full!

Unfortunately Shadow Cliffs is far from full. Take a close look!

(Post deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

Let's see how long it take residents to figure out Castlewood seniors get free water paid by tax payers.

Kathleen,
According to the letter sent our by the City a few days ago, washing vehicles is banned unless it is done at a facility that recycles the water. Now, whether they are enforcing that ban is another matter.

Who was the Einstein at the City that came up with the odd/even days one is permitted to do outside watering, based on one's number in their address? Most automatic sprinkler systems are not programmable for odd/even days. If they think people are going to start manually controlling their sprinkler systems, for no valid reason, they are nuts. Is the City going to devote Gestopo to review everyone's water bill to see if they watered on the wrong day, or drive around at 1:00 in the morning with a spotlight?

I like the comment that watering at the Callippe Golf course will continue because "it's an asset that Pleasanton doesn't want to lose." Again, money speaks...... In the meantime, my funds aren't considered an asset important enough for the City even though I'm doing my best to comply (and, as stated earlier, have been doing so for quite sometime).
I agree with another writer - we live in an arid environment and KNOW that drought conditions are eminent at any time. Let's focus long-term for water solutions; i.e. meter apartment dwellings and other co-habitable structures; develop more reservoirs - take a lesson from San Ramon who did this years ago. Instead the City of Pleasanton puts up traffic signals and signs all over town. Come on City Counsel - have the guts to hit the hard issues at the risk of not being liked and voted for at the next election.

It does not surprise me one bit that we are being told to cut 25% of our usage with no real information about what that means exactly to our everyday lives or how this equates to gallons used for various activities. It also doesn't surprise me that the mandate start date is unclear and in the middle of a billing cycle. Nor is it a surprise that one of the biggest water wasters is the City itself. It should not be a surprise to anyone that the mandate was levied without much thought because the decision was made by politicians!

How am I supposed to know that I'm reducing my indoor use by 10% when I have no idea how many gallons I normally use and how many gallons are being saved by adjusting? There is no record of indoor vs outdoor usage and no record of how much water is used for everyday activities by any specific person or household. And, when I drive down the road and see water gushing from medians or flowing into the drains in parks or watering a golf course with drinking water it makes me wonder why anyone is surprised that the politicians have the priorities mixed up. That is thier job!

If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, use that bucket of water you've been keeping in the shower to collect excess water or the bucket by the sink that you save rinse water in, THEN flush it down.

by doing these two simple things our family of four is saving approx. 850 gallons a month & a little over 10,000 gallons a year.

If it means we can keep our vegetable garden it's worth it.

Now if they can just get that large scale passive water desalination project they're working on at LLNL off the ground we can solve this and all future drought issues.

SMS, Callippe has stopped watering the fairways and they are importing recycled water to water the greens. It helps to stay informed so you don't look foolish.

Received our letter from the city on May 16th stating mandatory 25% reduction beginning May 7th. Should have sent the letter out in advance, not after 9 days. We are watering our lawn twice a week, but will not be on a odd or even day, not unless the city can provide us with a system that knows the days of the week. We have conserve, but poorly planned. Households change from year to year. We were on vacation for 3 weeks in August last year. August is going to be a tough one to meet the guidelines.

Cholo, a parent who would subject their child/children to an after school job to become a key informant, for such a task, is harmful. The real possibility of interfering with school work and becoming a way of easy money by turning in your community and neighbors, is not healthy...IMO If what your trying to actually say is, we should better prepare our children for the future water difficulties/shortage by becoming good role models/stewards with our natural resources, just say it ! Don't mince words with nonsense.

One of the remarks said that seniors in Castlewood get FREE water. That is not the case. The city and Castlewood made an agreement and now the billing for water goes through the city. Castlewood Country Club is a business and so now all of the residents have to pay for their water at a business rate.
One of my friends got a bill that covered a number of months and it was $1100.00!!! Don't think that is free.

She now is letting her lawn go and even takes her laundry down to a business.

One post mentioned that Callippe has stopped watering the fairways and they are importing recycled water to water the greens. Why can't the city do the same for the homeowners? Providing recycled water via tank trucks to homes on a schedule similar to garbage pick up seems doable. Homeowners could either be supplied with barrels or provide their own containers to be filled up at curb side. Price range on a 55 gallon water barrel runs ~$60, with a 30 gallon running ~$40. Pump to siphon runs about $12 which allows you to fill from the container with no tilting/lifting.
Come on City of Pleasanton, offer some workable solutions to the problem!

Sad to read about such decisions made in a true vacuum of knowledge by the City council. The result will be even more wrangling and posturing until social meltdown occurs. City council please stop casting decisions that do more harm than good...and consult with some SMEs BEFORE hand, and think about public reactions BEFOREHAND. This will be another costly disaster.

Inform Yourself,

This is the link to the City of Livermore for mandatory water cutbacks. Inform your sister an uninformed Livermore resident.

Web Link

So that's great that he said they "wont target people that have low usage"... but thats not what the literature says. it says:

"SEVERE DROUGHT IN PLEASANTON
25% Mandatory Reduction

Penalties for excess water use during Stage 3 Water Shortage: Penalties apply if 25% reduction is not achieved. Water Use Reduction Goal Exceeded:
1 time $4 per unit used in addition to normal rate fees + $50
2 times $8 per unit used in addition to normal rate fees + $100
3 times $12 per unit used in addition to normal rate fees + $250
4 or more times $16 per unit used in addition to normal rate fees + $500"

so thanks for choosing not to enforce it btu that does not change the fact that they CAN enforce it at ay time with low users because thats what the referndum states!!!!

Are they trying to trick us into conserving? if you want to target the high users, do that, but not under a veil of going after everyone.

Terrible politics, not transparent at all. No one on the board getting my vote next election.

I don't have a problem conserving, for several months now I've kept a bucket in the shower to collect all the water that would otherwise go unused while waiting for it to warm up. Now I also try to remember to shut the water off between soaping up and rinsing off.
However...the other day I was walking the new extension of the iron horse trail near Santa Rita and a city worker was parked on the trail hosing the concrete path down! I felt like all my efforts wasted as I watched him washing the trail! They also planted some plants along the trail, it's pretty, and I'm no plant expert but I don't think they are drought tolerant plants...

Judging from the way it's written and the fees it is clearly a tax that can be put on almost anyone. If they wanted to be fair they'd establish a per person usage guideline and have higher rates for people who don't meet them. Penalizing people who already have low usage is unfair. Current high users only have to skip one day of grass watering to save a much water as I use all week on essential things like drinking and washing.

According to our past usage we have been able to cut our usage 50% from this cycle last year. So let me understand it, I am now supposed to cut that more?
Really, if I cut 25% off of what we were using last year then I can use more water! LOL Cause 25% sure would be a lot more units I could use than what I do now.
Genuine question, if I am at 50% of last year now what am I to do? A call to the city got me this answer: we are requiring a 25% cut from the April to June 2013 billing cycle. They had no comment about my already using 50% less.
Me thinks they don't have a clue what they are doing!!!!

All very good examples why requiring a reduction or a fine is not the way to go but rather have different bands of cost based on usage like PG&E.

The current fine system, with exceptions, means the city is going to be spending a lot of time dealing with appeals and people are going to be upset if somebody else wins an appeal but they don't as it will all be subjective.

I'm just curious why the sprinklers were on at Amador Park this afternoon at 2:45 PM? I was directed to stop using my sprinklers after 9AM. Nice leadership.

Pleasanton Weekly - Please help inquire about these issues/questions residents are having. It would be very helpful.

Literature is intentionally vague.

No benchmark, 25% of what mentioned.
Even if it is compared against last year, what about changes in the family? new resident? new person in the family? Do you want residents to call and/or write an essay pleading for a waiver?

Mr. "Smith" should be called to get a waiver? Why not set a benchmark similar to PGE electricity and charge those who use more? Are you having too much time to handle those calls? Or do you expect the busy residents to not call you and you can charge as you please?

Odd/week days with 31st day no watering? (like Deport Cholo, said).. Did you do any research about sprinkler system? There is no way anyone can schedule a sprinkler with your suggested logic.

Easier option could have been, every 4th day.. door#/3=0 for tue/fri, etc with none watering on monday.. Instead of making a solution easily implementable, you have come up with a confusing approach that nobody is going to implement. Implement, human resources will be wasted holding the hose and wasting water when sprinkler could have done a more efficient job! (You brainiacs suggested automated dish washing systems over hand cleaning, why not same approach for sprinklers?)

As a relatively new resident of Pl, I see the city government (all departments) too intrusive. They want people to call them, lick their boots and what not.

Frustrated already, new resident.

Literature is intentionally vague.

No benchmark, 25% of what mentioned.
Even if it is compared against last year, what about changes in the family? new resident? new person in the family? Do you want residents to call and/or write an essay pleading for a waiver?

Mr. "Smith" should be called to get a waiver? Why not set a benchmark similar to PGE electricity and charge those who use more? Are you having too much time to handle those calls? Or do you expect the busy residents to not call you and you can charge as you please?

Odd/week days with 31st day no watering? (like Deport Cholo, said).. Did you do any research about sprinkler system? There is no way anyone can schedule a sprinkler with your suggested logic.

Easier option could have been, every 4th day.. door#/3=0 for tue/fri, etc with none watering on monday.. Instead of making a solution easily implementable, you have come up with a confusing approach that nobody is going to implement. Implement, human resources will be wasted holding the hose and wasting water when sprinkler could have done a more efficient job! (You brainiacs suggested automated dish washing systems over hand cleaning, why not same approach for sprinklers?)

As a relatively new resident of Pl, I see the city government (all departments) too intrusive. They want people to call them, lick their boots and what not.

Frustrated already, new resident.