Monday, June 3, 2013

Does Sierra Madre Have Water Schizophrenia?


On the City's website there is an announcement that you as a resident of Sierra Madre must begin restricting your use of water immediately due to the severe drought conditions that have plagued the region recently. Which is fair enough, I suppose. Sierra Madre, which is one of the few cities anywhere that relies almost solely upon rainwater for its reserves, is far more susceptible to the unhappy effects of a dry period than other cities. And life would become interesting in a bad way if suddenly we were to find ourselves without any water. Here is how the City's notice reads (link):

Increased Mandatory Water Conservation Measures, 5-29-2013
At the May 28, 2013, City Council meeting, the City Council implemented mandatory water conservation measures for all water customers in Sierra Madre, effective immediately. The dry winter Sierra Madre just experienced seriously affected the groundwater levels as did increased water consumption by the City’s water customers. Due to the lack of rain and increased consumption, the groundwater levels have not recovered, leading the Raymond Basin Watermaster to reduce the City’s groundwater pumping rights by almost 47%.

The City now requires that each water customer conserve a percentage of his or her July 2011 through June 2012 water use. The required percentage of conservation will vary, depending on the customer’s water use. Customers consuming 0-12 billing units of water (0-1,200 cubic feet) will be exempt from the conservation requirements. Customers using 13-17 billing units (1,300 – 1,700 cubic feet) are required to reduce their consumption by 10%. Customers using 18 units or more are required to reduce by 20%.

What is not broken down for us here are the penalties for not complying with these requirements to decrease your water usage. Fines that will be added to your water bills in increasing amounts should you continue to consume more water than the city feels it can sustain. Not something particularly pleasant or even right, but certainly not completely unexpected given the severity of our water predicament.

In addition to these financial penalties there are also restrictions on your personal behavior. The City's site lists them this way:

It is imperative that everyone in the community does everything they can to conserve water. Active, thoughtful water conservation by everyone in Sierra Madre now could help the City avoid even more stringent mandatory measures and/or the import of water from sources outside the City.

The following measures remain in place:
- Washing sidewalks, walkways, patios, driveways, or parking areas with a water hose is prohibited.
- Water may not be used to clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains unless such water is part of a recycling system.
- Restaurants, cafes, delis, or other public places where food is sold, served or offered for sale, may not serve drinking water unless expressly requested by the customer.
- Water leaks must be fixed immediately.
- Watering lawns, landscaping, or other turf areas is prohibited between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. and must be done in a manner that does not waste any water.

Nothing really all that out of the ordinary here, either. These kinds of behavioral restrictions are pretty much par for the course, and certainly we have all seen similar ones before. You, as a conscientious resident, are expected to do your part, and chances are you have already been doing so.

But what does not make a lot of sense is the fact that despite the severity of our water situation, along with the urgent calls for personal and even financial sacrifice from you, the City of Sierra Madre resident, the development juggernaut continues to roll on here. Planning is falling into place now on a scale of building rarely if ever seen before in this town. Development that, once finished, will make heavy new demands on a water supply that we have been told is nearly gone.

We are about to see the beginning of construction for The Kensington project which, despite some idiosyncratic reassurances from those who supported this "sensible" project, will make considerable demands on our limited water resources. We're talking 80 new residents with supporting staff that have some understandably heavy water needs.

Then there was last Tuesday's somewhat bizarre decision by the City Council to wedge into our General Plan a requirement that we allow high density 20 unit per infill acre development in various places throughout the city. This item coming right next to a discussion about how best to fine residents for using too much water.

And again, a potential water use nightmare for a city that we are being told is running out of the stuff.

This Thursday, June 6 at 7:00pm, the Planning Commission (link) will decide on whether or not to approve plans for the first three houses at Carter/Stonegate. It will be the last hearing of this permit cycle, so any decisions made will be the final ones for these designs. These 5 bedroom, 5 and 1/2 bathroom tract McMansions are precisely what the community was trying to prevent with the Hillside Management Zone Ordinance, the Stonegate Design Guidelines, and the General Plan. The resubmitted so-called improvements in design are insufficient, with the guiding principle being little more than common greed.

If approved, these "5 flusher" houses will become an available template for every house that follows - and probably anyplace in town, too. The "you allowed a 5 bedroom 5 1/2 bath mansion on a small building pad once, so you are guilty of 'taking' unless you let me do it, too" argument will make controlling the construction of more of these water hogs nearly impossible.

Obviously this is a big deal.

And again, how are we going to conserve water when for the first time ever we would allow the building of a 5.5 bathroom equivalent of the Luxor Baths? Potentially throughout the entire city? Where is the "sustainability" in that?

So we have to ask the question. Does Sierra Madre have water schizophrenia? A city with one set of stringent and punitive rules for current residents, while those bringing unwanted jumbo development to this town are given carte blanche to do as they please no matter how little water we have left?

It certainly does look that way.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

100 comments:

  1. Two rules. One for residents, the other for developers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it's been this way for almost a dozen years and will continue

      what do we expect with what we elect?

      Delete
  2. A few know the truthJune 3, 2013 at 7:24 AM

    I will explain this the best I can. When wolf in sheep's clothing "Joe Mosca"was elected to council the first thing he did was help vote in the emergency water hook up on that 8" pipeline running down Grand View. That set the wheels in motion. The planners and developers have been working on this for a long time as you can see. Now we have an emergency, so now the city can start buying some very expensive water to take care of the problem. The good news is now the city can start making some real money from the water department like they use to do. Long ago Doug Berkshire (city financial employee) said "the City of Sierra Madre treats the water department like it's own cash cow". Mr. Berkshire also said some things that I'm sure City Hall would not like to hear get out. A lot of us residents have been played as patsies for too many years, it is time we had an intrinsic audit, then the truth will come out. It is time to take action now in more ways than one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is an obvious question. Which side is City Staff on? The residents whose taxes pay their salaries, or the developers whose projects will look good on their resumes?

      Delete
    2. MaryAnn MacGillivray (former Mayor and great lady) and Linda Thornton (a top attorney and true friend of Sierra Madre) knew, they knew.
      They tried to warn us. The knew and they were right.
      Councilmembers, Kurt Zimmerman and Don Watts...they also knew.

      Delete
    3. Eight foot (not inches) pipeline.

      Delete
    4. Size doesn't matter.

      Delete
    5. Information regarding the size of the pipe that was built under Grand View in the 1920's but never connected until now is of interest so we can know what we are talking about.

      Who is paying now for the connection? How is is going to be financed? More bond debt? Delta water? Colorado River water that is under constraint from the several states allowed to us it? Lake Mead and Lake Havasu "resevoirs" are historically low, too.

      Delete
    6. MWD paid for the pipe, Sierra Madre pays for the water and the treatment of the water. Lose, lose all the way.

      Delete
    7. Great. All we are left with is $19 million in water bond payments.

      Delete
  3. It is time the citizens vote in a City Manager, not the council. We kneed someone on the residents side, not the business side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what we don't need ever again is a younger mobile City Manager who is using us for a launching pad for his or her career

      what we get is a city manager who is pushing projects that will improve career advance in larger cities - "look what I did...."

      our next city manager should be a senior managment level who is in the twighlight years of his or her career and not looking to trash Sierra Madre for his or her own agenda

      and we don't need mortgage salesmen or utility company employees making development decisions for this city

      Delete
  4. All good questions of course. Ones nobody at City Hall will either acknowledge or address.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DEMAND A MORATOIUM NOWJune 3, 2013 at 7:52 AM

    There should absolutely be a MORATORIUM on any new building in this town!
    This includes the Kensington and One Carter and Stonehouse and any other new construction UNTIL our water levels are normal again.
    PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Stand up at the Planning Commission this Thursday evening at City Hall and Demand it!
    Stand up at the next City Council Meeting and DEMAND it!
    This is your last chance to stop this.
    I'm tired of people being afraid of their city government. We need to make sure they are afraid of us. Hear that, Nancy Walsh? We put you in, we can take you out! That goes for all of you people. Start serving us or resign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol - Nancy Walsh - what a joke she became

      Delete
    2. She takes orders. That is all Nancy does.

      Delete
  6. Remember, everything Bart Doyle and his friends do fails. I doubt they ever thought the worst water shortages in decades would show up right around the time they were rolling out their big new product. Oh yes, and the bond debt plus the UUT sunsetting. Triple whammy for dirts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. remind me never to vote again for a building industry lobbyist for City Council

      Delete
  7. We both work and don't have time for this but we will contribute $ to a good cause.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough, thanks!

      Delete
  8. MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,MORATORIUM NOW,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THUMBS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. Resurrect SMRRD!

      Delete
    3. What does SMRRD stand for?

      Delete
    4. Sierra Madre Residents for Responsible Development.

      Delete
    5. SMRRD brought Measure V to the ballot

      Delete
  9. It's not just the water usage of future development that's problematic. Those big houses up on Carter/Stonegate will require greater quantities water that's pumped uphill, which is a huge power expense that everyone will be paying for (replace existing pumps and increase water pressure), it's not just the cost of the water supplies alone.

    Then there's the immediate issue of all the water use/wastage that the construction of all of this new housing in the city will create while the project is being built. There should be special fees for water used for construction processes (billed to the developer) because it doesn't replenish the aquifer, it all goes into the concrete or into the storm sewers, which is what the BMP program is supposed to address. Who makes sure that the contractor is billed for the water used on the projects?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's cityspeak for why gray water is not required in the construction process: more pollution is created by trucking it in.
      Hybrid trucks? Too expensive!
      It always, always, always comes down to making sure developers get the profit they want.

      Delete
    2. I really don't care if gray water cost the developer more. They should not use drinking water for dust control.

      Delete
    3. What a little dust water to people that are going to build 3 houses with 16.5 bathrooms between them?

      Delete
    4. And yet they are.

      Delete
    5. And remember 12:40, these first houses will set the standard - so potentially we are looking at 5.5 bathrooms times 27? 28? houses. Let's round off and say 160 new bathrooms.

      Delete
    6. Psychiatrists would have a field day with that one.

      Delete
    7. rich idiots buying houses in a documented fire and flood zone

      our city is telling us to do one thing while they can't even follow their own logic

      stop all development projects until the water crisis is over - we (the city residents) don't need the projects for ourselves

      this city caters to the residents who don't even live here yet

      Delete
  10. There is as much deception going on here as I can ever remember. How can a City Council, City Manager and the City Administration sit there and claim our lack of water has reached disastrous proportions. Lack of rainfall has left our sources so depleated we need to conserve, squeeze, and deny any perceived excess of our precious water. And to put it into perspective all who abuse our conservation rules will be fined, fined, fined.

    And by the way we have approved a hugh assisted living "hotel", a major hill-side McMansion development, with three homes in the pipeline, all with deep water needs but thats OK, we have water for that.

    Our City makes PT Barnum's "there is a succor born every minute" apply right here in Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. City Hall is bum rushing the residents like they've never been bum rushed before. Did I read somewhere that the DA is talking to people in Sierra Madre?

      Delete
    2. where ya'll been?

      the city leadership has been lying to us for at least 10 years.

      our city manager is inept

      anything this city says about water I assume is a lie

      how's that for trust in our city government?

      Delete
  11. If you are reading today's post, you MUST speak at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff is backing the developer.
    If you can't attend because you just died, email or talk to several PC members. Ken Goldstein, Bob Spears, and Tom Pendleberry need to hear your voice. Don't bother with Pevsner he is 100% in the develooper's pocket.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am going to have to let my lawn die - so that MacMansions can fill the hillsides?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where's your sharing spirit, 10:35? Yes, your landscaping is a necessary sacrifice to new development.

      Delete
    2. Step aside, resident. Big development is on the way. Pay higher water rates, pay your fines, pay higher fees, pay higher permit costs, pay the highest utility taxes in the state of California. But please, whatever you do, do not complain. That would be uncivil.

      Delete
    3. Welcome into the world of Corporate Fascism!

      Delete
  13. How do we know that these 5 bedroom 5 1/2 bath MacMansions are not going to be used like the Santa Anita Inn in Arcadia is being used for.
    Birthing places for illegal Chinese women, who wish to have their child in the U.S.
    This was a big scandal in the Pasadena Star News a while back.
    We saw this months ago, when a friend noticed several pregnant Chinese women at that Arcadia Inn. We suspected this then, and we were right.

    How do we know these places up at One Carter will not be used for this purpose?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A number of birthing centers have been busted, not just in Pasadena. The San Gabriel Valley has given birth to a whole new cottage industry.

      Delete
    2. Cottage in a Castle industry.

      Delete
  14. 80 new residents at the Kensington? I thought it was 95.
    I'm not sure there can be any legal way of stopping the Kensington now, because they have been through the hearings and have all the permits. Or I assume that at this point they have all the permits. But the hillside castles do not have permits. They do not have the same legal standing as the Kensington.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the developers best friend, a law suit, will be used to threaten us into building the Alf and finishing off our water supply? What a system.

      Delete
    2. Just because City Hall is staffed with out of town hires doesn't mean they're geniuses.

      Delete
    3. What a horrible mess.

      Delete
  15. Skeptic on recordJune 3, 2013 at 10:49 AM

    Looky here folks, if the Grandview water pipe is for emergencies only how can the city tap into it for development if there isn't an emergency? Call ime a skeptic, but I believe all this ballyhoo about water shortages is only a run up to a "crisis" and making a case for turning the spigot to MWD water - enough for 28 One Carter McMansions, many many 20 unit/acre condos, more expansions of group living campuses, and the all time grand daddy of water guzzlers, the ALF. Stick around folks. The next decade will be a doozey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might be right. Which would also mean that everything the city has been telling us is horse crap. Hardly the first time that has happened.

      Delete
    2. I agree with skeptic. Maybe realist is a better name. Staff and most council members never seem to worry about the end of our water the way we do. They are more confident, because they know they can get water.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Carter hillsides houses are "spec" houses. That means that a developer is trying to build and flip for the most money possible.
    The residents are being asked to conserve so that people in the spec development business who gobble up distressed real estate can make a very nice living.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Having our own water was one of the best things about us.
    It was one of the things that really made us unique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So now Sierra Madre residents will be buying bottled water like most other people who live in Southern California.

      Delete
    2. Nice to see our standard of living going up in smoke.

      Delete
  19. No one hates McMansions more than I do, but I think you are missing the point here.
    I think what we're actually seeing is what might be called a "council-created drought."
    In other words, the need for "mandatory water conservation" is contrived.
    Its goal is to justify a hike --- or several successive hikes --- in water rates.
    In response to the warnings and notices, residents will comply with mandatory water conservation, and those efforts will indeed save water. But the goal of the city leaders was not to save water, it was to plant seeds of fear: Fear of running out of water, or of disobeying the law, or of having to pay huge fines, or of being reported to the city for "water waste" by neighbors who may already have other issues with you, etc.
    Once those seeds of fear become seedlings of fear, they will have done their work. Then just watch how quickly the city-imposed water conservation mandate is abandoned and an effort to drastically hike water rates is resumed.
    I believe that an anti-development stance by the public in response to such shenanigans will only play into the council's hands by creating an unnecessary civil war amongst the townspeople that distracts them from addressing what the city is REALLY up to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. I disagree that opposing over-development is an unnecessary civl action.
      What sane people would develop beyond the capacity of their resources?

      Delete
    3. I'm only pointing out that you shouldn't necessarily assume the following:
      1) That there isn't enough water in the first place, as you've been told, and/or
      2) That city leaders give a rat's behind that you've pointed out their inconsistency or illogical thinking (i.e., that lack of water should mean no new development)

      Delete
  20. We are being exploited, and the people we're paying to take care of our interests are enabling it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. not enabling - doing it themselves

      same leadership that we pay to treat us with respect and be transparent and what do we receive?

      an adminstration that spins misinformation and outright lies because the can and we don't care

      Delete
  21. where do Arcadia and Monrovia get their water? They don't seem to have a shortage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People in those towns pay less, too.

      Delete
    2. A lot less!

      Delete
    3. Imagine that.

      Delete
    4. I smell a Rat!!!

      Delete
    5. Check your sneakers.

      Delete
  22. The Public Works Director announced that we were running out of water.
    If that is true, the moratorium is called for until the next time we have an abundant rainy season.
    If it's not true, then he's a liar, and let the development boom proceed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And fire him for lying.

      Delete
    2. It could be that the penalties people are going to be asked to pay are about getting more money out of the rate payers than water conservation. Which would make this a crime.

      Delete
    3. So what else is new!

      Delete
    4. I don't think they've used penalties before.

      Delete
    5. the dude already lied to us about rusty water pipes and how we had a disaster looming if we didn't pony up some serious money to build new pipes etc

      which all turned out to be a lie - sure we need new pipes but the city took advantage of a situation (a sinkhole) and started a fright campaign with public meetings with dire warnings

      and behind the scenes, it was all just a lie to cover the actions of a previous Council (political allies) and let's not forget that Buchanan was seeking some bonds or federal money piggybacking the original UUT for a new 7 million dollar library he was jonesing for (but the city didn't need)

      we gotta stop electing clowns for the Council

      or add "none of the above" as a choice

      Delete
  23. The fault of having 5 bathrooms in a home is directly on the City. In the Stonegate Design Guidelines nothing is said about how many bedrooms and baths a house could have. Heck, they could put in 10 bathrooms if they could squeeze them onto the building pad. Nothing was done, either to attempt to have water saving measures for Kensington, either in the construction or the operation. After reading the staff reports for the three houses at Stonegate, I don't see how the planning commission can turn them down. Even if they put a moratorium on building today, these houses would go through because they are already in the process. But for future building something has to be done and done fast. Yes, the guiding principle is greed on the part of the developers, and in our society, making money is not a sin. But the City must not turn their heads when it comes to making mandates for water conservation when it comes to further development.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why can't the Planning Commissioners turn them down?
      They are uninspired predictable big boxes with some decorations that are meant to make a difference. And they are not approved yet.
      Being "in the process" does not mean being approved.

      Delete
    2. 1:15 Isn't that the same as "closing the gate after the horse escaped"? The planning commission should deny the plans and let the City Council show its true colors. It will make it easier next election.

      Delete
    3. The Kensington has been approved. It is likely nothing can be done about that.
      The houses have not been approved. Different game entirely.

      Delete
    4. They can build that thing, but there is nothing that says we have to sell them water we don't have.

      Delete
    5. 2:47, thus the 'emergency'. We have to use MWD water to take care of the assisted living residents. Honest. It's an emergency.

      Delete
    6. We need more water to build green condos and save the world from global warming. No, it's true. Go ask whatever they call the Green Committee these days.

      Delete
    7. They call it the EENREC (maybe) The Energy, Environment, Natural Resources Experts Commission.

      Delete
    8. I call them the Greems.

      Delete
  24. If I want to put my house on the market, as someone who has nothing more to cut down on than the lawns, trees and plants, I'll be selling a property with no landscaping. Don't you think that will have kind of a negative impact on the "curb appeal"?

    ReplyDelete
  25. The MWD will surely be used to fight any fires in the hillsides.
    During the Carter hearings more than one resident talked about the complete lack of water pressure there.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One of the more interesting consequences of building on hillsides was acted out on the slopes above La Canda. One at a time as homes began to rise above the City with driveways, patios, roofs replacing the soil that absorbed the rainfall. A major downpour resulted in neighbor against neighbor with plywood and fenceposts being quickly errected to defllect the runoff back into the streets and then into the more developed areas below. We have not had such a storm since.

    I hope the City has assured the homes below Carter, and following the Santa Anita Drainage Canal that nothing of this sort will happen in Sierra Madre. Home Insurance and Flood Insurance will not cover the City's lack of thought and preparation for the coming disaster. And it will come. Those below Carter should be on record with the City with a legal document warning of the danger and the failure of the City to anticipate the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the boulders you see around town - as some long time residents where they came from - they rolled downhill

      Delete
  27. If you get MWD water into our "system" it still doesn't mean we have the power to push the water uphill. We will just have more water at low pressure for the hillside area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why bother? They'll just flush it all back down again.

      Delete
  28. If there's not enough water for the people already living here, there's not enough water to bring in even more people. Or am I over-simplifying this?

    If city staff and council knew this condition existed, and still allowed new development to proceed, isn't that cause enough to relieve them of their duties?

    Cui bono? When these un-necessary MacMansions are built? Cui bono? When population density increases beyond the capacity of infrastructure to support it?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why would anyone want to buy any kind of a house up there on that cursed property of One Carter?
    It is the triangle of death...FIRE FLOOD EARTHQUAKE.....and it has a curse by the native Indians.
    Remember the dead bodies found up there? Murdered. Very bad luck will happen to anyone who buys one of those homes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course the former Principal of Marnatha went up the the property and prayed and she said afterwards that God spoke to her and said this was the place for Maranatha's new high school

      ...God told her to build a high school in a flood and fire zone?

      God happened to be Greg Gallanety who was on the Maranatha Board and spearheaded the high school buying the property which to no surprise, he was able to profit personally with his company and later turns out to be under investigation and of course despite God wanting the high school in the fire zone, Maranatha moved on

      so, I blame all of this on God

      Delete
  30. While I agree with the outrage expressed,it is futile unless action to purge the City & Council of people who do not serve the residents best interests.
    What specifically can we do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you could write a simple petition stating a non emotional position in a clear satement and have neighbors sign it and send to the Council

      if 50 residents did something like this and got 10 voter age signatures per petition - that's 500 signatures which is almost a normal turnout

      we have to let Josh Moran know that we are onto his scam - he's a mortgage salesman making developer decision, he should be reclused

      but expect Nancy Walsh to bristle and state that you are insignficant because she was elected and she knows best

      Delete
  31. Excellent point, 9:23 am. And 5:34 PM, you're right. And this is why I think you're right:

    "...Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...."

    Do Sierra Madre's 'leaders' serve the residents' best interests? Based on the upzoning issue and the McMansionizing disaster, no evidence of that. More examples exist, too. So what can we do?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Prefacing this by saying I'm behind all of us doing our part to conserve water.

    Considering the amount of litigation the Federal Housing Act has generated against local governments, I would be interested to see how a federal suit would play out re this tiered plan for mandatory water conservation. I'm guessing most higher water users simply have more people living in the home. If those additional people tend to be under 18, this is like fining residents extra for having kids. While I trust some folks may love that idea, the FHA probably does not. As a general rule, our federal laws usually distinguish us from, say, China. Of course, if I'm wrong about any aspect of this, the city can show it in discovery.

    ReplyDelete

The Tattler is a moderated blog. Annoying delays when posting comments can happen. Thank you for your patience and understanding.