Fact-Checking the “Fact-Checkers”: Snopes & Politifact Said I’m a Big Fat Liar, But Let’s Look at THEIR “Facts”

(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you'll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item. ~ Daisy)

By the author of Be Ready for Anything and the online course Bloom Where You’re Planted

Last weekend when I wrote about the new bills that were turned into law in California by a mercifully-departing Governor Jerry Brown, I never expected a hub-bub. I did my research, came to some conclusions, and titled my article, “Now It’s Illegal to Have a Shower and Do Laundry on the Same Day.” That’s the link if you want to read it first. Fact-checkers Snopes and Politifact said I was a big fat liar, but let’s take a look at their “facts,” shall we?

Contrary to popular belief, no kittens were sacrificed to the devil in the writing of that article. I just sat down, did a little research, and came to some conclusions that in my eyes were (and still are) entirely reasonable. However, Snopes and Politifact disagreed rather vehemently. (About the conclusions, not the kittens. The kittens actually were a figment of my imagination, unlike anything in the article they “debunked.”)

Now, before I get into fact-checking these so-called fact-checkers, let me tell you a quick personal story. Writing controversial content can be a wee bit stressful sometimes.

When the mainstream picks up on what you’ve written, you can expect a lot of hate mail.  Most of it is of the generic, “you’re an idiot” style but there are always a few overachievers.

I’d like to send out my very best wishes to the guy who hopes that my daughters and I get locked in a basement and die of thirst. You’re a stellar human being. Almost as nice as the guy who believes it would be my just desserts if I were to drown in all the water I want to waste. I guess he missed my best-selling book that has an entire freaking chapter on water conservation. And to the woman who told me that I work for the Russians and probably, in fact, actually LIVE in Russia, please, if you know them, could you let them know I have not yet received my payment? Thanks. You’re a peach.

Anyhow, I digress. Back to the so-called fact-checkers.

Debunking Snopes

Ah, Snopes. The weapon of the uninformed who proudly post a link as a rebuttal and give it the same weight they would if the Good Lord himself had dipped his pen in golden ink and written the piece for Snopes himself.

Well, I won’t even get into the fact that it is actually not the Good Lord who writes for Snopes. It’s pretty easy to research the divorced couple who does the so-called “debunking.” Let’s just talk about their “fact check.”

Snopes’ rating of my article is “mostly false.”

The first thing I’d like to point out is that the so-called fact-checkers credited the story to Zero Hedge, who republished my article, accurately giving credit to my website. Somehow, they missed the very first line which linked to their source. Huh. Good work, fact checkers.

Let’s also note they described Zero Hedge as a “conspiratorial website.” That isn’t biased at all, right? Snopes is clearly a beacon of the impartial truth. They cited a response from the creators of the bills:

Jim Metropulos, legislative director for California State Assemblywoman Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) who authored 1668, told us the legislation sets water efficiency goals for water districts and municipalities on the territorial level, but it does not regulate what individual Californians or businesses can and can’t do: “There is nothing in this bill to target households or companies. Water use objectives are on territory-level of a water agency. There is nothing regulating the time a person may shower or when they may or may not do laundry.” (The “penalty of up to $1,000 per day” for excessive water use referenced in many alarmist articles on this subject applies to “urban retail water suppliers,” not to individual customers.)

Okay – I will grant them that it does not specifically say that people can’t shower and do laundry on the same day. But it does limit the water usage to 55 gallons per person per day, which according to my calculations will exceed the allotment if one should take an 8-minute shower and use anything other than a brand new high-efficiency washing machine.  As for the fines, the thousand dollar amount is the minimum listed in the bill and the suppliers are the ones billed. But if you think for one moment that they’re just going to eat that thousand bucks when people go over their limit, I propose that you are delusional.

In no way did their debunkery debunk anything except for the fact that I drew a well-researched conclusion based on the wording of the bill.

Anyway, then Snopes asks you to donate to them to help pay for the battle against misinformation. Maybe if you did, they could hire someone literate.

Debunking Politifact.

I had higher hopes for Politifact, spurred on by the fact that they actually figured out where the article originated and contacted me for a comment.

Dear Ms. Luther,

My name is Bill McCarthy and I am a staff writer for PolitiFact. I am writing a fact-check on a quick deadline this afternoon about the claim that new California water management laws have made it illegal to shower and do laundry on the same day. On your website, The Organic Prepper, you wrote an article with the following headline:

“Now It’s Against the Law in California to Shower and Do Laundry on the Same Day.”

I am researching this claim independently but wanted to reach out to you for comment. Is there any evidence to support your claim that is not listed in your story? Also, can you tell me where you got your numbers for water usage during an average shower and laundry load?

If you would like to comment, please respond by 3 p.m., as I will be finishing my report by then.

Thank you for your consideration.

I responded promptly.

Hi, Bill – thanks for contacting me. I check your website often when working on an article so that I can get a thorough picture of different sides of a wide variety of issues.

I’m happy to explain where I came up with my numbers.
I used the following links:

Water for doing laundry with an older washer: https://www.home-water-works.org/indoor-use/clothes-washer
Water to take a shower for 8 minutes: https://www.home-water-works.org/indoor-use/showers
Water to run the dishwasher: https://www.home-water-works.org/indoor-use/dishwasher
Water for a bathtub:  https://structuretech1.com/is-your-water-heater-large-enough-for-your-bathtub/

Clearly, people can find ways to use more or less water, but these were averages that seemed to be consistent throughout the different places I searched.

Then, I just did a calculation. If one is allotted 55 gallons of water, and a shower takes 17 gallons of water and a load of laundry takes 40 gallons, you’ve used 57 gallons and exceeded your daily allowance of water. I try to make things applicable to my readers instead of vague concepts and was quite surprised when the comparison took off in the media the way it did.

I hope this is helpful. Thank you again for reaching out, and please feel free to do so any time.

Then I went about my day, feeling a brief – very brief – glow of vindication. Because, I had shown them my calculations, my sources for the calculations, and had been quite professional. What could possibly go wrong?

I’ll bet you know where this is going.

Politifact rated my article as “mostly false” on their Truth-o-meter.

The only way they could have given me a lower rating would be if they’d said my pants were on fire on the Truth-o-meter, which is, in fact, one of their ratings. So, I mean, there’s that.

They pointed out that Facebook, with whom they partner, had flagged my article as “part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on Facebook’s News Feed.” And speaking of Facebook, they posted this message over the Zero Hedge republication of my article when someone tried to share it:

Politifact pointed out all the websites which had cited, republished, or referred to the premise in my article, including U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes.

Politifact concluded that residents won’t be penalized at all for exceeding their rations.

Under the new legislation, Californians will not actually be penalized on an individual basis for excessive water use.

In reality, the bills stipulate that cities, water districts and large agricultural water districts must come up with budgetary targets for water use by 2022. They will then need to meet their targets across their ratepayer bases, with failure to do so resulting in a fine of $1,000 per day or $10,000 per day during drought emergencies.

George Kostyrko, director of the office of public affairs for the State Water Resources Control Board, told us the water districts will be guided in their target-setting by three standards, one of which is the allowance of 55 gallons per capita per day for indoor residential water use — a number that will drop to 50 gallons by 2030. The other standards, both yet to be determined, will place similar caps on outdoor residential water use and water loss due to system leaks.

And again, I call BS on their conclusion that the water districts and cities will not pass on these fines to the consumers. Oh, wait, they alluded to the slim possibility that the cost would be passed on.

Fines based on consumption will actually be administered to the water agencies that fail to meet their targets, rather than individuals who use too much water on a given day. And while a water district could theoretically let those costs shift to individual water bills, any increase in costs assumed by ratepayers would be closer to a few bucks than $1,000.


Then they leap to some conclusions of their own.

For the record, it is also worth noting that washing machines are more efficient than they used to be, which calls into question some of the water-use estimates mentioned in the false reports…

…But most people now own high-efficiency laundry machines that use between 15 and 30 gallons per wash, according to Home Water Works. And since it is the average water use per capita that matters, one person’s reliance on an older machine would likely be offset by other residents who are not using so much water.

Most people? That seems kind of shady for a fact-checker. I read the page they cited half a dozen times and could not find that assertion.

Even if it was true in other parts of the country, I’d still say, not “most” people in California. No one can afford diddly in California because the bills are insanely high, you’re taxed to death, and the government there fees and fines you into poverty. I lived there for 5 years in a series of rentals and never once had a high-efficiency machine provided. I contacted 5 friends who live there still and one of the 5 had a high-efficiency machine. I realize that this is not exactly an official survey but it’s just as official as Politifact’s assumption that “most” folks have those types of machines.

To sum it up, Politifact used a variety of sources to rebut the article and belittled the sources with whom they didn’t agree. Congressman Nunes, Breitbart, The Federalist Papers, Fox News, and of course my own site, were said to be publishing “false reports” while other sources such as the offices of members of the California Congress who wrote the bills were deemed more credible for no other reason than their authorship. Which, let’s face it, is going to be biased.

Their “facts” are no more “factual” than mine. It’s merely an interpretation of information that they purport carries more weight because they call themselves “fact-checkers.”

The good thing that came out of this.

I’ve been pretty vocal about the entire situation when speaking with friends of mine who aren’t as into current events. They’ve found it interesting to watch the circus from my perspective, and a couple of friends made comments that made the whole thing worthwhile:

I didn’t used to believe there was such a slant with the news before Trump started talking about “fake news” (a term I despise, by the way.) But there is most definitely an agenda. It becomes more clear each day. I only hope that by you fighting back with truth, a few will start to notice there is more common ground than they previously believed. We can hope, can’t we?


Now you see how media manipulates things, like really, like this… how easily it can be twisted, how you can make it look like anyone said or did anything…. yeah

It’s pretty awesome that some folks are seeing the Orwellian way that the mainstream media works. Hopefully, quite a few more people will start to see the whole picture as well.

The inmates are running the asylum. The people who claim to be “fact-checkers” are certainly not better researchers than me or my fellow bloggers at Zero Hedge, The Federalist Papers, SHTFplan, and The Economic Collapse Blog. We’re all human beings who look at the world from our own unique perspectives. The problem is, they’re given more credibility and people aren’t truly given accurate information from which they can glean the truth.

Less discerning readers are being spoonfed an opinion which is flavored as fact, but most of us know that the truth is never quite that simple. They are being told what to believe and what not to believe and the people who lean on those sites or already have a preconceived bias don’t see this fact-checking baloney as the propaganda tool that it is.

It’s wildly Orwellian in that we have an actual Ministry of Truth that is anything but truthful. While there’s still “freedom of speech” in America, we have people literally telling us what to believe and the propaganda machine runs roughshod over anyone who dares voice dissent.

Well, see ya, Politifact and Snopes. I’ll just be over here in my House of Lies, You know where to reach me if you need further comments to ignore and ridicule.

Picture of Daisy Luther

Daisy Luther

Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, globe-trotting blogger. She is the founder and publisher of three websites.  1) The Organic Prepper, which is about current events, preparedness, self-reliance, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, 2)  The Frugalite, a website with thrifty tips and solutions to help people get a handle on their personal finances without feeling deprived, and 3) PreppersDailyNews.com, an aggregate site where you can find links to all the most important news for those who wish to be prepared. She is widely republished across alternative media and  Daisy is the best-selling author of 5 traditionally published books and runs a small digital publishing company with PDF guides, printables, and courses. You can find her on FacebookPinterest, Gab, MeWe, Parler, Instagram, and Twitter.

Leave a Reply

  • Daisy, I feel for you. That side of the realm are so far out there, they can’t take a joke or tolerate anything that disagrees with their personal belief. The other day, I made a comment on one of your articles and for merely stating the facts (and it was a FACT) some smart mouth told me to wise up when he was the one in the wrong. I feel sorry for any off spring they had or have. That is truly the dumbing down of America. Please ignore the haters (why do they come here? Nothing to do I guess). They are on every helpful site I go to. One in every crowd. God Bless You and your daughters! We reap what we sow and some people are in for an awful surprise! Much love.

  • This is just another tactic of the looney left. They make grandiose pronouncements and directives but deny that it negatively effects the individual. It’s the usual effort of non-producers’to distance themselves from the consequences of their directives. Like their hero Marx most have never worked an honest job in their life and have no comprehension how things actually work. If you point out the flaw in their “thinking” your are just a “reactionary counter-revolutionary.”

  • Good article. Good thing I don’t live in California. Our water use has gone up significantly since we bought a “high efficiency” washing machine. The new machine does not allow you to choose the water level, your clothes don’t get clean and detergent does not get completely rinsed off. After removing the lock from lid, we saw how much water was used to wash a regular load….it didn’t even cover the whole load. So now for every load of laundry, we have to use the “bulky/heavy setting (using more water than we need) and the 2 rinse cycle. Oh, and the time it takes to complete a regular wash cycle is double the time it used to take before we had a “high efficiency” machine.

    • Jenny, I must concur. I absolutely loathe our so-called HE washer. Our use has also increased, and solely due the washer. I run our well off a solar/battery system and installed logging flow meters for each major are: kitchen, each bath, laundry, etc when I was sizing the system. The laundry use increased roughly 18% when we first installed the unit, but adding three additional rinse cycles to get chemical out added another 20%. HE is a lie. And the device has a high failure rate – roller bearing, soap tube plugging, water inlet filters plugging, door seal deciding to leak. I can’t wait for it to die.

      And Daisy – KUDOs. Don’t let them get you down…

      • Cruella We just had to replace the bearing under the tub. My husband is a fix it fellow and it required a special tool that he was able to get by without but the average guy wouldn’t have been so lucky. Tool cost was over 100 bucks. My washer is only 5 years old. And it is a Maytag which I felt was a better brand. My daughter-in-law got a new washer and it lasted 10 loads and wouldn’t drain. The replacement is taking over 3 weeks and still not arrived. I am tempted to get an old wringer washer. I dislike not having a soak cycle for dirty work clothes.

    • Jenny, when my old washer needed to be replaced, I decided to try HE since it’s supposed to be so great. Well, after washing a load of my husband’s work jeans 3 times & they still weren’t clean, back to the store it went! We exchanged it for a regular washer which actually uses water and rinses out the detetgent.

  • I do have to agree that no where does it stipulate daily water usage, as in combining showering with laundry. (I know, it does state DAILY usage). However going over a daily limit obviously necessitates going under your limit elsewhere to compensate. That being said, Don’t most residences only have one water meter, not one for the house and one for the property? If the individual resident will not be billed / held accountable, then why did I read in the original article satellite imagery, drones or other ways could be used to monitor INDOOR water restriction compliance? And how does that work other than outside water use? And don’t most residencies have one or more outdoor water bibs on the outside wall of a house? California compliant low water use washing machines do not get clothes as clean as the older models, we own one. When they first called for water rationing, most people complied, which dropped water usage, so water companies suffered a drop in revenue, so water rates went up. Never to decrease. There is talk of an .95(?) cent monthly water bill tax to …. pay for water infrastructure. Which I thought used to be included in the bill, but then we now get electric bills that charge monthly for distribution lines etc. even if no electricity is used. I have a landscape only water well that costs me $30 a month, even when I don’t use it. The California Legislators just increased the cost of doing business, and yes the water companies will need to raise their prices, again. And Snopes are idiots anyway.

  • I, too, have a strong distaste for those who knowingly ignore, stretch, mangle or abuse the truth.

    Question: Of what possible use is a group that checks facts and presents bias and sloppy investigation or even, dare I say, a hidden agenda?

    Answer: They are of no use at all!

    I must say Daisy, that I have always enjoyed your writing but you are superb at sarcasm.

    I’m so jealous!
    Dr, Victoria

    • Oh no, they have a use, for their masters. They spout the party line and will lie to your face. They will smile while they lie to you,. because they think you’re dumb. Well, you’d be dumb if you believed them. I finaly came to the conclusion that whenever a dem/lib/antitruper speaks, they’re lying. For fun, next time you see James Crapper I mean Clapper on cnn or some other propaganda network, watch his eyes as he speaks, you can tell he knows he’s lying and he’s looking to see if the host believes his line of shit.

  • Stop sniveling Daisy, you know you used inflammatory words within a sentence aimed at tugging at the emotional strings of the ignorant. When you leave out an important aspect of that concept string, it is still a Sin of Omission, and we know you know it. You got caught playing fast and lose with the truth, so suck it up, take your licks and don’t do that again in the future.

    • @Rumpleshitskin

      Stop being Fake and Gay™. You leftists are the only ones playing fast and loose with truth here. Also, stop diddling little kids, m’kay?

  • Daisy,
    Thank you for your insistence on the truth. Nowadays it is rebelious to speak it. I know because I was just given a “compassionate” reach-out from my family for mental health help. Their concern is that I am believing in “conspiracy theories”. Apparently, like the good old Soviet Union, I must be crazy to not believe the accepted story lines. So I am sorry you are going through this social backlash, but I understand where it is coming from. People are engrained with whatever the government tells them and no one appears to ask questions. Thank you for being one of those rare people who think for themselves!

  • This will probably turn around and bite the people of Calif.
    How can they tell how much water you use for a shower? Remember the “smart” meters? The hot water tank uses a set amount of electricity to heat the water (assuming it is an electric heater). Combine that with water usage at the same time and they can tell you how much water you used and how much electricity and how long you were in the shower. Do a load of clothes and again, they know the amount of electricity and water you have used. Over 55 gallons? BANG – $1000 fine for first offence, next one may be $5000!
    When it happens you need to send the link to snopes (rhymes with dopes)!

  • Daisy, I would like to say, I LOVE your style! You bring a fantastic mix of truth with sarcasm in such a unique way. It is always interesting, educational, truthful and humorous. I put your articles at the top of my list for satisfaction. Thank you for continuing to deliver important information in the way you do.

  • Daisy,

    Thanks for taking the time to fact check the “Fact Checkers”. I discovered years ago that these were all political leaning hacks. I use to preach and I’d use this example of how you can change the meaning behind the statements. In John 11:39 when Jesus told them to take away the stone from the grave of Lazarus his sister protested, because Lazarus had been dead four days and she said. “But Lord, he stinketh” in reference to his decomposing body. However, if you change it up a bit, “Lord He stinketh!!”

    My niece lives in Boston, and I often send her news snippets from Texas. She constantly tells me, “Wow, I have not heard or seen this on the news…” One such example was yesterday’s news that the USA now has the fastest growing economy in the world. It is far to easy to keep those in the dark who are not seeking the truth hard enough.

    Keep up the good work!

  • There are lies, damn lies, and worse of all statistics. We can all see which one is favored the most.

  • What about the use of the toilet? That adds more gallons to the per day total of water. How many times a day does the average person flush? What about washing the dishes, mopping the floor? What more needs to be said?

    I am out of that state, but still in a lib state. I have a well and storage tank. I imagine that this state at some point will try to control me and the water on this property.

    I made my escape from CA in 2004 after living and working there from 1970-2004. It was insane enough when I left, and it has taken a steep downhill turn since then. And at that time 2004, I didn’t think a steeper downhill turn was even possible, but then came the last Presidential 8 years and the return of Gov Moonbeam. OMG. I can only hope there are enough sane people in CA to begin to turn things around. Otherwise, Californians, look to Venezuela for your eminent future.

    • We must do everything we can to promote kali and the like states as havens for libs/dems/domestic enemies. They deserve to wallow in the cesspools they’ve created. Most of them already live in the larger cities, wich are sure targets of Russian and Chinese slcms, slbms, and icbms.

  • Great article Daisy….just another topic on why I left California in 89. Also loved….Snopes, the weapon of the uninformed. Hope you dont mind i use it

  • (1) hopefully, Rumplestiltskin was just being sarcastic.

    (2) James Borowy makes an important point: they want to take away guns from “crazy people”.

    Disagreeing with the status quo means, “you’re crazy”, so give up your weapons.

    Two physicists will always agree that it takes one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen to make water.

    But, two psychiatrists will never agree on what makes someone “crazy” – that is the difference between fact and coercion.

  • Well, checking up on snopes….it was started by an unqualified couple in an apartment. They have no reason to be believed. And as for the “water shortage” in California…..when Gov. Moonbeam allows the flows of water that dump into the Pacific to be used or dammed up instead of providing habitat for some mythical endangered species, their problem will be solved. Created problem to create the democrat desired result. The younger generation is leaving Calif. in droves since they can’t afford to live there anymore. I left 10 years ago for the same reason.

  • As far as your title goes, it seems that your claim didn’t go far enough. A $1,000 penalty for the use of water, the most sustainable element on the planet (Thank you, God), is simply making using water illegal. Try a simpler headline, like that next time. Literary license aside, I love debating the globalists. When it comes to common sense, they are really stupid. Silly, even. And, as for those who try to defend them? Beyond ridiculous.

  • Awesome job! It’s nice to see a shining example of how slanted many of these “fact checkers” and “debunkers” are. You keep on doing what you are doing. Just be aware that some of these individuals and organizations often start to fight dirty once you seriously threaten their favorite pack of lies. So protect yourself. I love the original article and I love this follow up.

  • Keep doing what your doing, I’ll bet brownstuff is still trying to wash it off everyday in the shower, and doing his laundry at the same time.
    I simply refuse to obey any law of the kind he passed, or anyone else passes. I left that putrid state 12 years ago, and now we have a Brown spot up here too. She is just about as stupid as the California one.
    Keep exposing, writing, and doing what you do.

  • And what about all the swimming pools in California??? Once that what’re is treated with chemicals for the pool it can NOT be used to drink or water the yard even!!! Will those homes with pools be given an exemption for the many many gallons being used daily to top-off the pools and keep the water levels up???????

  • When I was a teenager in CA. during a long drought. The government told everyone to only take 2 showers a week, no baths. At first you could water your lawns 2 times a week in the evenings, then later they said you could not water your lawns at all. If it happened in the 70’s, how far-fetched would it be that they would do it again? Keep up the good work!


  • It’s been a loooooong while since I believed Snopes “fact checks” on many, many subjects. However, I do agree with your logic…and anyone with half a brain can see that your headline had not only a grain of truth…but also grabbed the attention of even those without that half a brain. Don’t worry, those of us who actually THINK, know that the penalties will be passed on to the consumer in some way, be it rate increases and/or (more Orwellian—but also more progressive) automatic shutoff of individual water meters after the alloted household use was met. What you didn’t even get into was people who actually still DRINK the stuff that comes out of their taps. I don’t like the idea of all the plastics in use today, don’t believe that bottled water is any better from [their tap] than mine and filter all my water — but it originally comes from my tap. Thankfully, I’m not frim California. But also worry that, to paraphrase, “as California goes, so goes the nation.” Thanks for letting me rant.

  • Whenever I need to know the facts about any “controversial” issue, I check to see what Snopes says. Then I feel safe as milk in assuming that the complete opposite is the actual truth.

    Daisy, keep giving it to this self righteous bigot. We the people have eyes to see, and no amount of blathering bullshit spewed by a rank apologist for the ruling class is going to pull the wool back over our eyes

  • I realized Snopes liberal slant many years ago. It is interesting that sites like this one, zero hedge, etc. are now being bullied and targeted. They’re seen as a threat now and we all must watch out for the smothering of free speech and thought.
    We aren’t stupid and swallowing the liberal party agenda – it pisses them off.

    A side note on He washers – use substantially less detergent to avoid an additional rinse. The one I have now allows a “deep water” option if I feel it necessary, but I rarely need it. I have a top load He and it’s imperative to load in a donut pattern as instructed in the manual.

  • How can any California afford the extreme unrealistic $1000 to $10000 dollars a day?

    Also we do not really know the exact gallons of water we use. I will be in complete fear every single day when I go about my daily usage of water. I will be afraid to flush the toilet, run the water in the kitchen to clean items, or run the dishwasher. We have older washer — we are know retired on fixed income – we do not receive much income from our Social Security (about $2500 a month between my husband and I).

    My question is – are these Communist-Maxist going to give us a clue or a gage on what our water usage is for the day. Since they say it is per-person, will it mean our limit is 100 Gallons a day? If not, then how do you calculate per person usage? They have not thought about that.

    What about the leaks of our pipes, we are responsbile if it goes over even though we do not know it is leaking?

    What happens if we cannot afford it? Are they going to seize my home and bank accounts or put a Len on our home until we pay. We will be out in the streets in no time because these SOBS will destroy our livelyhood and what we worked so hard all of lives to live as law-abiding citizens. So they criminalize each and every person who goes over the limit starting in 2022. This must be illegal and uncontitutional.

    This women in the Assembly and people like her make me sick to my stomach and who in the hell they think they are putting this extreme fees on Californians that they know for a fact no one can afford.

    Also, I wonder if the illegals, MS-13, Muslims and the Polticians themselves will be exempt from the law too. The DemocRAT are very rich since they used their office to become millionairs who have mansions. Are they also limited? What about Hollywood the actors their hugh mansion are they also under the same law? The companies in California are they going to regulate per person at their site how much water they use as well?

    I wonder about the landscape in California Government offices and freeways – will they be under the same CREATE OUTRAGOUS UNREALISTIC DRACONIAN TRANNY LAWS?

    • California’s 2-tunnel delta project back on track with SoCal water district’s vote
    o https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/California-s-two-tunnel-Delta-project-is-back-12823416.php


    Now more than ever – me and my husband will make it goal by 2022 (If a new GOP governer does not overturn this law) will be moving out of state that is decent and law-abiding politicians who do not use their office for hateful laws such as this.

  • Dear Daisey, I read your story about water usage and what happens if one were to exceed the daily allotment. I’ve lived through several droughts, both in California and here in New Mexico. (Hint: it ain’t new, and it ain’t Mexico)
    A few years ago, the snowpack was scanty and Albuquerque went into conserve water mode. The city put on a very good PR campaign that appealed to many people, a sort of “We’re in this together, so let’s use less! ” and we did. We the people met and exceeded our goals to conserve water, as good cooperative citizens can.
    Then the insult. We were charged more for the water we scarcely used, because apparently the water shareholders deserved to make as much money during a drought as in wetter years. The public outrage at this affront was huge, so this year, when it didn’t snow, there was no appeal to our better selves- just threats. Kind of like they expect us to behave like the “Unwashed Masses” . Anyway, keep reporting in your own style.
    An Adorable Deplorable

  • I would just write back and say ,I do not respond to conspiratorial and web hate sites. Thank you for your time. 🙂

  • Thanks to people of courage, such as yourself, there exists clarification about “laws; legislation” being passed, which, within its contents, reveals ‘legal loopholes” ANY government can use to further grasp daily control over the lives of the citizens they claim they are “protecting”.
    Yet, by trying to ‘control’ water usage, the words allow for increasing gov’t control for the “good of the people.”
    There a neighborhoods, where, it is ILLEGAL to collect rain water. Rain, which lands on YOUR roof, runs down YOUR drain and into any CONTAINER for which you will use said rain for whatever reason naturally necessary, is considered STEALING from your neighbor AND your community.
    And in California, i would bet it won’t be long before that becomes reality.
    GOD giveth. And the government taketh away. Because THEY KNOW BETTER what is in our best interests.
    Love your website!!!!!

  • Good article. I read the original and thought your conclusions were appropriate. After reading their “truth”, it sounds like it’s worse than what you wrote! So, if the individual is not charged, but the city is charged for going over the “limit”, that would mean that the city will charge everyone extra because one person went over and the city got a bill?! Does that sound better?! Cali is toast. It’s been mismanaged for so long, and I don’t think the people actually voted for those doing the mismanaging, it would be a miracle if they pull out of the pit their in. Unfortunately, whatever is going on in Cali will, most likely, spill out to the rest of the country eventually. =(

    I liked your conclusion that “most” people don’t have an HE washer. =) We just got an HE machine (top loader) because our old machine (only 5 years old) would have cost too much to fix (computer went out). Don’t you love technology? /s/ Anyway, the “most people” comment made me think of a conversation I had a couple years ago with our water company. There was a boil advisory that I didn’t find out about until a day after it had been issued. (We have a Berkey, so I wasn’t worried about drinking water.) The lady I talked to said they don’t usually contact the customers but instead put a bulletin on the local country radio station’s website. I asked why that is since we don’t listen to that station, nor frequent the website (I check it periodically now!). Her response? “Most people” drink bottled water, so a boil advisory is no big deal. O_O What?! Okay, so my family who does NOT consume bottled water on a regular basis and is at home almost 24/7 with small children (homeschool/ homestead/ etc.) doesn’t need to know about a boil advisory?! I was floored with their conclusion. “Most people” will never cover “all people”. Ridiculous.

    Thanks for your website and articles, Daisy! Keep up the good work and don’t worry about the “fact checkers”! (I can’t type that with a straight face… Snopes?! Hahahaha!!!) =)

  • We all know Snopes used to be a reliable source to fact check, as in trivial stuff that may settle bar bets. but not when it comes to politics.

    And what about Politifact, which a lot of newspapers have been using the past 1 1/2 years ever since President Trump was elected?

    In 2018, PolitiFact was acquired by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists. PF claims it’s financially self-sustaining, and only getting administrative support from Poynter.

    And just who funds the Poynter Institute? The answer can be found here: https://www.poynter.org/largest-funders-poynter-institute

    Some of the more notable names are Google, and the Open Society Foundation.

    Just who funds the Open Society Foundation?

    Yep, one George Soros. I’m sure he has much more control than just offering $$$$$$$$$.

    You can tell lieberals to follow the money, provide ’em links, and they still won’t believe what’s in front of their eyes.

  • Daisy,
    Stand your ground. Your research is correct, and your assumptions are right on. It’s refreshing to read articles that are correct and NOT politically correct. Keep up the good work!

  • Daisy,

    Clearly you are right, and they are BIG FAT LIARS.

    Snopes is such a joke. Only an idiot would trust them They always back the mainstream narrative that everything is A-OK in the USA. Politifacts should change their name to some closer to the truth like politifuks.

    Anyway, I’m not really that familiar with your work, but you rock. Congratulations for getting that sweet link on Drudgereport… Very cool…

  • I live currently in California (planning to change that in a couple years) and my condo complex where I rent doesn’t use high efficiency machines. We also have a number of water leaks to deal with, on average three slab or in-wall a year since we moved in.

  • Ahhh! I see your egregious mistake. In the body of the piece you probably should’ve said “new California water management laws have effectively made it illegal to shower and do laundry on the same day.” Looks like Snopes based their ridiculous conclusion solely on your headline, since anyone who’d read the article could only reasonably conclude that your observation is “mostly true”. Snopes and Politifact have both become so rabidly partisan that they’ve lost their credibility anyways!

  • Politifact and Snopes are simply Leftist agenda sites. And Facebook is liar’s poker. I have zero faith in any of them. Daisy, everything you have said about California is true. The taxes, the political stupidity, and the insane spending is killing what was once a vibrant and wonderful state. We have 2600 miles of coastline, including all of the estuaries, coves, river access, etc. Not ONE damned desalination plant in the entire state!! And, there are ZERO plans to build one. Talk about stupid……..It breaks my heart, but I continue to plan my escape.

  • I want to thank you for your very informative and well researched articles , and to let you know the kind of frustration that came through in your writing … don’t let them get to you , don’t let the “BAS&$@DS ” ( and I use that term in it’s true context) win.
    I look forward to your next writing , and again … Thankyou.

  • SNOPES and POLITIFACT are left wing propaganda tools for lazy left wingers who want nothing more than some quick ammunition to fire at the right regardless of the truth as long as it props up their agenda.

    If you wrote an article on how Jesus walked on the water, Snopes and Politifact would immediately have lengthy explanations asserting the “fact” that Jesus cannot swim.

    Even though you gave a reasoned, thoughtful and unbiased rebuttal you can rest assured that NOTHING will be retracted, corrected or amended on either of their sites.

  • Great minds think alike. I pointed out the same short coming. Oh I was told it was just propaganda. I’m share this with those distorters. Thanks.

  • thank you for putting up with all that and writing for the “rest of us”, the open-minded and knowledge thirsty crowd. Forget the haters and ostrich with head in the sand types.

  • Hello Daisy,

    I just did a calculation on just using the TOILET for my daily use – I do not know if I have an “Ultra Low Flush Toilets” I will assume I have that uses 3.6 gallons per flush. Just today starting at 12:00 Midnight I have used the toilet 6 times (I get up a night and have to use it), so that will mean I have used already 21 GALLONS of water. I know I will have to use it more today – since I drink a lot of water to keep hydrated. I know I will NOT have enough water of the limit of 55 gallons to take a shower, run the faucet, do laundry. Not everyone can afford to retrofit your home with new Toilets, Washing Machines, Faucets and Dishwashers.

    I believe these DEM-RAT COMMIES did not do any study to see if Californians are able to stay within the 55 Gallons limit per person. Also, what about apartment complexes, do each person in the apartments have to be accounted for or are they exempt – or is only for people who live in homes? I left them questions on their Facebook pages, but they will not answer my question. Per the law, to force the fees applied for going over, they will go to court to force you to come up with cost – or I can see how it is written – see below we will probably be arrested and put in jail or our home and bank account seized. I will not be able to live by these illegal laws by making us criminals when we have done nothing wrong!!! I will not stand for it and I will make sure we will leave California to Nevada Del Webb for sure by 2022. The DemocRATS who makes these laws are the real criminals because I know this Is unlawful and unconstitutional. This will bring undo hardship to us – since we will not be able to afford this and I know everyone in California will not be able to afford it either. I am so furious and angry I wish these RATS will go live in IRAN and leave us alone! NO ONE SHOULD EVER VOTE FOR A DEMOC-RAT AGAIN!!! #DONTVOTE4DEMOCRATS2018

    Part of Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, who authored AB-1668
    (2) For all violations other than those described in paragraph (1), one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs.
    (b) Liability pursuant to this section may be imposed for any of the following violations:
    (1) Violation of an order issued under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 10609) of Part 2.55 of Division 6.
    (2) Violation of a regulation issued under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 10609) of Part 2.55 of Division 6, if the violation occurs after November 1, 2027.
    (c) Civil liability may be imposed by the superior court. The Attorney General, upon the request of the board, shall petition the superior court to impose, assess, and recover those sums.
    (d) Civil liability may be imposed administratively by the board pursuant to Section 1055.
    SEC. 4. Section 10608.12 of the Water Code is amended

  • Daisy, you crack me up! Good article. Thank you for listing your sources so that we can look at the same information and draw our own conclusions. I’m tired of everyone telling me what I should think about “facts” that they do not reference or link to. Thank you for all your hard work.

  • You Need More Than Food to Survive

    In the event of a long-term disaster, there are non-food essentials that can be vital to your survival and well-being. Make certain you have these 50 non-food stockpile essentials. Sign up for your FREE report and get prepared.

    We respect your privacy.
    Malcare WordPress Security