Just what we need. More stupid vague laws. And of course we have a political willing to engage in such silliness. Jerry, how about you get rid a some laws that restrict human freedoms before you add more.

Cities have monopolies on setting water prices. Even after the alleged drought ends, prices will never fall.

"Cities have monopolies on setting water prices."
Water prices are set by water districts, not by cities.

Also, your support for low water prices is at odds with your support for less government. If water were supplied by the private sector, we would pay much more than we do. Which would mostly be a good thing, because then we'd be motivated to conserve.

Water is considered a "right", so prices are set low enough to not inconvenience poor people. We have a state law prohibiting agencies from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it. And as far as I recall, the "cost" is considered to only include operating expenses, not capital expenses. Taxpayers foot the bill for those. (Which will increase dramatically if we pass this year's ballot proposition to redirect high-speed rail funds to dam building.)

P.S: The new law obviously creates an exception to the fee-limitation law I mentioned.

Poster from Castro City -- "Even after the alleged drought ends..."

Guess actual facts are inconvenient for you, eh?

Take a look at city budget discussion. Water districts sell water to cities but cities set the prices to residential customers. Hard to say whether water price are set below private markets since SCVWD controls most of the market, but there are a few private water companies and their prices are cheaper. As to the alleged drought, what constitutes a crisis. Has any one died from lack of water. Has anyone gone without water? We certainly have had brownouts in electricity . There is plenty of water available, it's just provided very poorly by govt. agencies.

Yes I would like more choices in buying water for my house. Then we might see some better offerings. SCVWD Provides 100% drinking water. Why. I drink very little of the water I consume at my house. It's wasteful and expensive. Some cities allow two,sources, white and grey water. It's a lot cheaper.

I hope the law will allow some leeway for those who suffer from a sudden water leak and are caught off guard. They shouldn't be penalized. I know it happened to me one month. I didn't notice a leak had developed in my irrigation until the bill came and it cost was 10x the previous month due to tiered cost - several hundred dollars. It took a bit of looking to find it.

This is like trying to put out a forest fire with a cup of water. The amount of water used by CA households and businesses is 10-16% of the total amount consumed. Agriculture is 50-60%. So fining the consumer will have no impact on the problem of a statewide water shortage. Laws that fine the voter but don't address the real issue causing the problem are a waste of resources and money. How are the water companies going to spend the extra revenue they get from this fine? Will it be applied to programs that actually have an impact? I hope this state senator is proud of himself...

The REAL root cause of the problem is that environmental nitwits like the Sierra Club and the US EPA have blocked CA from building any new "water storage facilities", dams/reservoirs in plain speak, for 40 years. In the mean time, the population of CA has risen by 50%. Talk about environmental ignorance! We need new dams where it rains --- in the mountainous regions of extreme NoCal next to the Oregon border. There's not much up there except for illegal cash crops. We can afford to build the conduits once we block Jerry Brown's corrupt Twin Tunnels water theft for SoCal.

Also, I have to agree with Cuesta Park's comments, in part. Water-intensive farmers in the Delta, the Valley, and SoCal are getting away with murder due to their political influence. A billionaire farmer, who is Jerry Sunbeam Brown's greatest donor, was expanding his hugely intensive almond orchards somewhere in SoCal during the peak of the drought. CA State cut him some slack.

Oops! I meant to say "hugely water intensive" re Jerry Sunbeam's corruption toward political donors.

@cuestapark, last I checked, watering your lawn neither feeds nor employs anyone. I agree that agricultural water use has to be part of the solution, but pointing a finger and saying its someone else's problem to solve doesnt help

I would like to nominate the City of Mtn View for a big huge fine-- The sprinklers at Cuesta Park run EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. I know, I know, asphalt will die without watering. And the empty dirt planter boxes in the parking lot need water too.

Some valid points about practical water usage have been raised.

But I was driving down I-5 a couple of weeks ago, and from the freeway saw a rice field.

A rice field.

Half an acre of that uses more water than all the waste that has been mentioned up to this point (except for what OldMV has pointed out).

Getting farmers in line probably saves more water than all the other measures that urban/suburban usage could hope to save with even the most austere water practices.

The municipalities have a monopoly on the water supply. They continually raise the rates for delivery and usage with no benefit to the consumers. A cost saving would be the installation of smart meters which would eliminate the task of walking through neighborhoods.
Also, some of us have livestock and gardens that provide food for our families and less fortunate neighbors, ie., people living in million dollar houses standing in the bread line each week.
It is arrogant for the government to tell us not use sufficient water.
Limit the number of people coming here, instead.