Panelists answered the following: Would you support mandatory, statewide water-use restrictions due to drought conditions?
Ruth Erickson: “I don’t think each area should have the same restrictions because various areas have different requirements such as agriculture or urban. However, Northern California sends water to Southern California, so they the should have restrictions similar to those at the water sources.”
Nants Foley: “I have conserved water since the drought in the late 1970s. I definitely support educational programs to help people learn to conserve. But mandatory? How will that be enforced? Sounds like an administrative nightmare to me.”
Richard Place: “Yes. If those people in Southern California wouldn’t be allowed all the water they wanted to wash their cars.”
Marty Richman: “Yes, water is a limited resource in parts of California and it is moved all over the state to satisfy priority needs. Based on that, the state has to act as a single entity and apply conservation statewide during periods of shortage. They should also get their priorities straight and stop selling water for low prices during period of plenty and buying the same water back at high prices during periods of scarcity. We need to make long-term agreements with places where water is overabundant such as in the pacific northwest because much of California is naturally dry and there is little chance this will change even in centuries.”
Mary Zanger: “Yes, I favor mandatory conservation. No rain and no snow mean no water. Restrictions will mean one less shower, load of laundry and load of dishes per week by each man and woman. Next Gov. Brown might think smart about our largest water consumer, which is agriculture. Start with removing marginal land like the Westlands near Fresno from production. The state could buy the land. Retire it to its former environment. This would satisfy the landowner, conserve tons of water and be a win/win situation for everyone.”
