Citing California’s five-year drought, Gov. Jerry Brown issued an executive order making some of the state’s temporary water restrictions permanent.

Permanently banned are wasteful practices such as hosing off driveways and washing cars with hoses that lack shut-off nozzles.

The governor credited Californians with having accomplished significant water conservation, saving 1.3-million-acre-feet of water from June 2015 to March 2016 with statewide cumulative savings in the same period of 23.9 percent compared to the same period in 2013. Nevertheless, the governor concluded water savings must continue statewide.

What the new regulations do not continue are across-the-board mandates to users of urban water to reduce consumption by 25 percent. Adopted on May 15 instead are localized “stress test” approaches. Urban water suppliers must act now to ensure at least a three-year supply of water to their customers under drought conditions.

Assuming they would face another three more dry years, agencies must act to maintain a three-year supply in reserve. If suppliers project for instance, a 10-percent shortfall, then their mandatory conservation standard would be 10 percent.

“Drought conditions are far from over, but have improved enough that we can step back from our unprecedented top-down target setting,” said State Water Board Chair Felicia Marcus. “We’ve moved to a ‘show us the water’ approach that allows local agencies to demonstrate that they are prepared for three more lousy water years.”

The governor’s order directs the State Water Resources Control Board to adjust emergency cutbacks through January 2017 that had been previously ordered. That flexibility means areas still facing water shortages could be directed to maintain 25-percent cutbacks while areas like the Northern California coast that saw major rainfall last winter might not be issued any further cutbacks at all.

“This is not a time to start using water like it’s 1999,” said Marcus. “While El Niño didn’t save us, it did help us. We got a reprieve. We need to use this moment wisely.”

“Permanent” prohibitions in addition to those mentioned above include: applying potable water to outdoor landscapes in a way that causes runoff; applying potable water to driveways and sidewalks; using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature unless there is a recirculation feature; serving water other than on request in eating or drinking establishments; and using potable water for landscapes outside of newly constructed homes and buildings if inconsistent with California Building Standards Commission or Department of Housing and Community Development regulations.

After a very difficult and, at times, personal discussion, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a budget for 2016-17. The overall budget is nearly $5.4 billion, but only the discretionary general funds, which amount to $814 million, was subject to intense scrutiny. A board that usually achieves consensus was faced with fractious comments last week.

County Executive Jay Orr warned the board in February the current-year budget would present difficult decisions and bring long-term ramifications. Simply funding all departmental requests would have reduced the county’s reserves to less than $100 million.

But the supervisors were adamant that $150 million must be the lowest level for reserves and this budget achieves that goal. However, it limits the growth of public-safety programs and maintains tight limits on other departments.

A hiring freeze has been imposed on all county programs. This budget is the first step in a journey toward fiscal sustainability, Orr believes.

“In the short term, we can expect discomfort as a result of holding spending down,” Orr said in his July 20 memorandum to the board. “Our long-term solution is to achieve operational savings as a result of the KPMG-led re-alignment effort.” The county has hired a consultant to review all its programs, with emphasis on the public-safety programs.

But the crux of its success is the board’s willingness to continue tough budgeting, which Orr stated in his memo means “substantial restraint to maintain overall discretionary spending flat over the next five years while still delivering mission-critical county services.”

Supervisor Kevin Jeffries (1st District), who recognized this vital component months ago, and questioned the board’s willingness to forego increases after one year, was charged with panicking and frightening county staff during last week’s session approving the budget.

“[T]he current budget process is the worst … I’ve seen or worked with in 22 years on the board,” said Supervisor John Tavaglione (2nd District), who then devoted several minutes criticizing a member of the board, on his right, without using Jeffries’ name.

Eventually, Tavaglione described Jeffries contributions: “Some of your ideas are good, but some are crazy — $35,000 art projects …” He then chastised Jeffries for recommending cutting or reducing projects “in every district but yours” and the diminished quality of “stupid ideas coming out of a certain board member.”

Tavaglione is comfortable with Orr’s budget strategy and was concerned about the frequent references to layoffs. “We can do it without harming our own employees. Why shock them? They are nervous by comments we make in these hearings.”

Jeffries was surprised with Tavaglione’s charges and replied, “I didn’t know my ideas were revolutionary. I feel very sorry for my colleague, to know that suggestions to look at different ways to find efficiencies, to engage in dialogue with department heads, is such an upsetting suggestion that it would require a personal insult, one after another. I’ve experienced that in Sacramento … it hurts and was painful. Not one of my suggestions was to encourage layoffs.”

The board adopted the 2016-17 budget on a 4-1 vote with Jeffries opposed. Chair John Benoit (4th District) agreed to meet with District Attorney Mike Hestrin and Orr in the next few weeks.