This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigate

A home in Madera went without water when one of its wells went dry and another collapsed.

The lake bed is exposed at Kings Beach on the north shore of Lake Tahoe.

Water levels are low at Hensley Lake near Madera.

Sprinklers drench the sidewalk in front of a Santa Rosa home in July.

After two years of drought, Gov. Gavin Newsom remains reluctant to put limits on statewide water use. His administration, however, is looking to take a first step.

Next month, the State Water Resources Control Board is expected to adopt temporary prohibitions on outdoor water practices, including hosing down driveways, filling up decorative fountains and watering lawns within 48 hours of rain.

A violation of these rules would carry the threat of a $500-a-day fine.

“Even though it’s been raining (recently), we’re still in a water supply shortfall and still in a drought,” said Eric Oppenheimer, a chief deputy director at the State Water Board. “These prohibitions to me are just common sense. They’re pretty much uses that shouldn’t be occurring during a drought, and I think everyone would agree.”

California is reeling from two of its driest back-to-back years on record. The state’s biggest reservoirs have hit historic lows, thousands of farms have been cut off from state and federal water projects because of the lack of water, and cities and towns are facing shortages.

Many communities, each dealing with its own level of hardship, have already banned certain outdoor water activities. Several have taken the additional step of putting caps on how much water households and businesses can use.

During last decade’s five-year drought, the State Water Board rolled out a similar ban on mostly outdoor wasteful water uses. The policy, which expired in 2017, went a bit further than what’s being proposed now, and included rules for the hospitality industry, such as serving water at restaurants only when diners requested it.

The 2014 wasteful water-use policy was followed up a year later with outright limits on water use. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown ordered cities and towns to cut water consumption a cumulative 25% statewide. Each community was given a quota, based largely on its past record of savings.

Newsom has so far asked only for voluntary reductions during the current drought: a cumulative 15% statewide, compared with last year. Since his request in July, water use has dropped 5.6%, according to state data.

The governor has maintained that water rationing should be a policy of last resort. He’s noted that much of the past decade’s conservation continues today, with both water-saving habits and more efficient technology like low-flow appliances keeping water use down. The governor has also noted that water agencies can move forward with local restrictions if they deem it necessary.

Many have been critical of Newsom’s more passive approach. They say not calling for even voluntary water reductions for the duration of summer, when water use is at its highest, has put the state far behind on conservation.

“If we had started earlier and hadn’t seen the response we should have seen, then we should have gone to mandatory restrictions,” said Heather Cooley, director of research for the Pacific Institute, a water think tank in Oakland. “As we saw during the last drought, early action can delay or even eliminate the need for more drastic action later.”

The governor’s office declined to comment for this story.

Political observers have noted that the pandemic, a time of sheltering in place and lots of mask rules, made it tougher for Newsom to sell new constraints, like water rationing. Additionally, the governor’s recall election meant unpopular policies carried greater liability.

The proposed ban on outdoor water practices, which will be considered by the State Water Board on Jan. 4, is expected to move cities and towns closer to Newsom’s 15% water reduction target. State officials, as well as cities, counties and local water agencies, would have the ability to enforce the measure. Most likely that would mean warnings at first, but possibly fines for those who remain out of compliance.

“These prohibitions can start to have a big impact,” said David Rose, an attorney for the State Water Board.

About 20% of the state’s total water use is human consumption, much of it going to the types of outdoor activities included in the proposed ban. The other 80% is agricultural.

Under the wasteful-water-use policy, these would be temporarily prohibited:

• Irrigating a lawn or other ornamental landscape with potable water to the point at which runoff washes onto the street or sidewalk.

• Washing a car without a shut-off nozzle on the hose.

• Hosing down driveways, sidewalks, patios and other hard surfaces with potable water unless health or safety are at risk.

• Filling decorative fountains or ponds with potable water, unless it’s recirculated water.

• Watering a lawn or ornamental landscape within 48 hours of measurable rainfall.

• Using potable water for street cleaning or construction.

• Using potable supplies for watering street medians or strips between the sidewalk and street.

Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: kalexander@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @kurtisalexander

Kurtis Alexander is an enterprise reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, with a focus on natural resources and the environment. He frequently writes about water, wildfire, climate and the American West. His recent work has examined the impacts of drought, threats to public lands and wildlife, and the nation's widening rural-urban divide.

Before joining the Chronicle, Alexander worked as a freelance writer and as a staff reporter for several media organizations, including The Fresno Bee and Bay Area News Group, writing about government, politics and the environment.