California
California regulators want to spend billions to reduce a fraction of water usage
In summary
Household use is a tiny fraction of California’s overall water supply, but the state wants to spend billions of dollars to make a tiny reduction in that already infinitesimal bit of water consumption.
Hydrologists measure large amounts of water in acre-feet – an acre of water one-foot deep, or 326,000 gallons.
In an average year, 200 million acre-feet of water falls on California as rain or snow. The vast majority of it sinks into the ground or evaporates, but about a third of it finds its way into rivers. Half of that will eventually flow into the Pacific Ocean.
That leaves approximately 35-40 million acre-feet for human use, with three-quarters being applied to fields and orchards to support the state’s agricultural output, and the remaining quarter – 9-10 million acre-feet – being used for household, commercial and industrial purposes.
In other words, nearly 39 million Californians wind up using about 5% of the original precipitation to water their lawns, bathe themselves, operate toilets and cook their food.
That number is important because it is such a tiny amount, even though the state’s perennial household water conservation programs imply that taking fewer showers or reducing lawn watering will somehow solve the state’s water problems.
The ludicrous nature of those propagandistic appeals is quite evident in the state Water Resources Control Board’s new plan to force local water agencies into cutting household water use even more, no matter the multibillion-dollar cost, and with penalties if they fail to meet quotas.
The water board says the plan, which was authorized by the Legislature in 2018, would reduce household use by 440,000 acre-feet a year when fully implemented. That would be about 5% of current use, which is only about 5% of average precipitation – scarcely a drop in the bucket.
The plan is drawing some well-reasoned criticism from two independent observers, the Legislative Analyst Office, an arm of the Legislature, and the Public Policy Institute of California, the state’s premier think tank.
The LAO, in a report to the Legislature, said the plan “will create challenges for water suppliers in several key ways, in many cases without compelling justifications.”
In essence, the LAO said, local water agencies would have to jump through the state’s hoops by spending billions of dollars for a tiny reduction in overall water use that could have an adverse impact on low-income families.
The PPIC is similarly skeptical, summarizing the plan as “very high cost for little benefit.” PPIC fellows David Mitchell and Ellen Hanak also pointed out its effects on low-income communities and the difficulty it would impose on local governments’ programs to plant and maintain trees as a shield against hot summer weather.
California does indeed have a water supply problem, mostly because its political leaders for decades have failed to expand the state’s water infrastructure that had been built during the mid-20th century.
Household use is not the problem. It cannot be because it is such a tiny part of the overall water picture and actually has declined, in relative terms, as the state’s population reached 40 million, more than twice what it was when the last major water works were constructed.
The major mismatch of demand and supply occurs in the two largest categories of water use, agriculture and the environment. Agricultural water agencies and environmental groups have been jousting for decades in the Legislature, in Congress, in courts and in regulatory agencies such as the water board over how much water farmers can draw and how much should remain in rivers to protect habitat for fish and other wildlife.
That’s the issue that must be resolved by reallocating existing supplies, building new storage and/or creating new supplies, such as desalination of seawater. Spending billions of dollars to save a few gallons of household water is just an expensive exercise in virtue-signaling that accomplishes virtually nothing.
Related
California
California bill to bar police from taking second job with ICE advances in state Assembly
Wednesday, March 4, 2026 4:43AM
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KABC) — A bill that would prevent police officers from moonlighting with federal immigration enforcement agencies, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is advancing through the California State Assembly.
AB 1537 passed the State Assembly’s committee on public safety on Tuesday.
The bill also requires that officers report any offers for secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their place of work.
Those failing to comply could face decertification as a peace officer in California.
The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, whose district includes Mar Vista, Ladera Heights, Mid-Wilshire and parts of South Los Angeles.
Copyright © 2026 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.
California
Can’t win in primary election? Drop out, California Democrats say
Newsom slams Trump amid U.S. military action in Iran
Newsom criticized Trump for spending little time acknowledging four U.S. service members killed in the conflict with Iran during recent remarks.
California Democrats running for governor, your party has a message for you. Think carefully about your candidacy and campaign ahead of the swiftly approaching filing deadline.
California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged candidates looking to assume the state’s highest office to “honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign” as March 6, the final day to declare candidacy, nears. Hicks said that concerns about the crowded field of Democrat candidates “persist” in an open letter on Tuesday, March 3.
It comes as five leading candidates, several of which are Democrats — Katie Porter, Eric Swalwell, and Tom Steyer — are in a “virtual tie” per a recent poll, the Desert Sun reported, which is part of the USA TODAY Network.
Two Republican candidates pushing out California democrats in the gubernatorial bid may be “implausible,” but “it is not impossible,” Hicks said of the reasoning behind his latest message. Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, lead in RealClear Polling’s average of various polls.
The party chair spotlighted the need for California Democrats’ leadership, particularly over Proposition 50, the voter-approved measure that will temporarily implement new congressional district maps, paving the way for Democrats to secure more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“If in the unlikely event a Democrat failed to proceed to the general election for governor, there could be the potential for depressed Democratic turnout in California in November,” Hicks said. “The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025.”
During a press conference on March 2, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that when he is out in communities, people aren’t talking about the governor’s race. It’s an observation he called “interesting,” considering voting in the primary election starts in May.
“It’s been hard, I think, to focus on that race,” Newsom said, pointing to the attention on President Donald Trump, redistricting, and other matters.
What exactly is California Democratic Party asking of candidates?
In his open letter, Hicks gave directions to candidates.
First, assess your candidacy and campaign. If you don’t have a viable path to the general election, don’t file to get your name on the ballot for the primary election in June. Also, be prepared to suspend your campaign and endorse another candidate by April 15 if you decide to file but can’t show “meaningful progress towards winning the primary election.”
When is the next California election? Primary election in 2026
California voters will trim the field of candidates for governor on June 2. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party preference, will move on to the November election.
Paris Barraza is a reporter covering Los Angeles and Southern California for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at pbarraza@usatodayco.com.
California
Supreme Court blocks California law limiting schools from telling parents about trans students
BAKERSFIELD, Calif.(KBAK/KBFX) — The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.
Rear view of multiracial students with hands raised in classroom at high school
The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.
FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)
The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.
Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.
Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.
“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.
Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.
Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:
Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.
The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.
-
World7 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts7 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO7 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oregon5 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Florida3 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Maryland3 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Wisconsin2 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin