Town Considers Forcing 100-Gallon-Per-Person Water Limit

Town Considers Forcing 100-Gallon-Per-Person Water Limit

OAKLAND, Fla. — A small town in Central Florida is considering forcing a 100-gallon-per-person daily limit on water for its residents.

Some residents in Oakland, which is located south of Apopka, are outraged over the proposed limit on water and said the rapid growth in the area must stop until there is no longer a shortage.

"I don’t understand why they are allowing them to still build if the water supply is not there," Oakland resident "Susan" said. "And, why should we be cut?"

Get used to it–and get used to the howls of protest from people who just don’t want to think about where their stuff comes from, and where it goes when they’re done with it. As the world dries up, warms up, and begins to run out of everything, we’re about to hit the era of forced sustainability.

It might not be fun, but at least it will be real.

Comments (3 comments)

ClintJCL / April 7th, 2008, 3:49 pm / #1

I don’t think the true solution will ever come from every individual caring and changing his or hers actions, but from scientific innovation that makes it cheaper to be green than not. Human nature is pretty immutable.

BTW, that washing machine toilet that I THINK you posted, but maybe it was Ryan, was awesome. Then I started to think — my urine is liquid too. Would it be worth the energy to purify THAT (not enough to drink, but enough to add to the washer load). I also wondered if the ammonia in our urine could be converted to cleaning products.

But they have to make things cheaper. Government subsidies would actually be good (for once) in this situation. They should really give out free CFL light bulbs — but honestly my reason for getting them was because they would be cheaper in the long run, not because of the energy.

I’d rather destroy the planet than live in the dark, and sadly this is probably true for most people. So they have to make things cheaper.

Of course, rising oil costs will help that too :)

Alex / April 7th, 2008, 4:27 pm / #2

Greywater systems are somewhat of a hurdle for most households, both psychological (used water? yuck!) and in terms of performing the installation and upkeep. They’re going to be more and more neccessary as time goes on. Catching rainwater is a good option if the ground is poor at absorbing water or there’s so much rain it flows straight into the ocean (I’m from the oregon coast, so both apply) to become brackish. Otherwise it’s simply going back into the water table where it can be used in the typical manner.

When I was a kid I lived for a while in a house with a gravity feed rainwater system and 0 electrical items. Wasn’t too bad. But if something goes wrong, it goes really wrong.

Cristy / April 8th, 2008, 11:47 am / #3

Collecting rainwater-good idea, but not feasible in some areas because high levels of acid rain make the rain unsafe to drink. As for the proposal, it is clear that it is being done to protect the people from running out of water due to a shortage, that’s pretty standard, except that here they are giving an amount instead of a type of use allowed. I think it’s a great idea because it gives people more choice in how to use their water.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.