California's Water Crisis. Why?

[Sufferin' Prius Envy]

Originally Posted by F8L

I'll be sure to get some pictures of the current lake level (Mono Lake) and some of the stream restoration work that I observed last summer. If my friends allow me to go as far as Owen's Valley I'll see if I can talk to some of the locals again and get some quotes for ya. lol I'll also add my own observations and thoughts from when I was down there two summers ago when we met with the guy from LA Water & Power.

When you get those "quotes," make sure you aren't talking to someone who works for LAWP or benefits in some other way. They are a MAJOR employer in that area.

"With the water goes the power."
And many of the people in that area feel subserviant to LA.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by Sufferin' Prius Envy

When you get those "quotes," make sure you aren't talking to someone who works for LAWP or benefits in some other way. They are a MAJOR employer in that area.

"With the water goes the power."
And many of the people in that area feel subserviant to LA.

So true.. As is most of what you've written in this thread so far. Most of the people of Lee Vinning seem pretty anti-LAWP but the closer you get to Bishop and Lone Pine things could change.

[Godiva]

Just say a commerical on the water shortage put on by CA gov. Didn't catch exactly who.

Little girl and Daddy are at the beach. Little girl asks with all that water out there, why is there a water shortage. Daddys says....we can't use it. We can't use it? Well, I guess that means no desalination in our future.

Oh, and it says the average person uses 100 gallons of water a day. I use 60. According to our Mayor I'm supposed to cut that down to 40. (Everyone use 20 gallons less per day.)

One size fits all and conservation only. That's his plan.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by Godiva

Oh, and it says the average person uses 100 gallons of water a day. I use 60. According to our Mayor I'm supposed to cut that down to 40. (Everyone use 20 gallons less per day.)

One size fits all and conservation only. That's his plan.

Are you 100% sure that each individual household has to reduce by 20gallons or are they using census data and saying we need to reach XX amount of usuage so each household should use no more than XX gallons. IE if each household was restricted to say 100gallons then if you were already under 100gallons then this does not affect you. If it is as you say it is then that is pretty rediculous and unfair to those who conserve as much as you do.

[Godiva]

It's all informal talk of conservation. There are no mandates. No numbers. No specifics. So I'm just going by what I'm picking up from commercials and the Mayor's speeches.

The Mayor doesn't say whether he wants every household to reduce by 10% or every household. But I don't think they know how many people are in each household so a per person reduction would be hard to calculate or enforce.

The commercial did say the average person uses 100 gallons. I live alone so I know what *I* use. It's on my water bill. I have this month's compared to last month and compared to the same month last year. I look at that data. And I save my bills. Both water and utility, which has the same information.

Personally, I don't think anyone has thought far enough in advance to figure any of this stuff out. They just hope that all together we'll cut by 10% and then they can avoid having to work out the details. I just know when the details are worked out, they probably won't look at how you've conserved over the years and are already under average. They just say cut more. I'm not sure how much more I can cut.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Originally Posted by Godiva

....According to our Mayor I'm supposed to cut that down to 40. (Everyone use 20 gallons less per day.)

One size fits all and conservation only. That's his plan.

If you were mayor, what would be your statement?

You certainly do what you can do, so your viewpoint counts more than others. However, his only immediate option is to stress conservation. If the microphone was in your face, you would find what you feel and what is responsible to say may not be the same. I think that is his situation as well.

Building big plants and changing the California water system is really not something he controls to the extent you infer....and we both know he has virtually no control on how people use water. Right now, I'm drinking water that is partially from a desal plant. Unfortunately, the increases in water consumption continue to exceed what can be provided, so even desal plants will not eliminate the need for personnel reductions.

[richard schumacher]

Originally Posted by FL_Prius_Driver

Unfortunately, the increases in water consumption continue to exceed what can be provided, so even desal plants will not eliminate the need for personnel reductions.

We just have to build them faster. Water at $0.01 per gallon is better than a mandatory 20% reduction.

[hyo silver]

Originally Posted by FL_Prius_Driver

...If the microphone was in your face, you would find what you feel and what is responsible to say may not be the same...

It's always a delicate balancing act. The largest consumer of water in my community is the local brewery. Somehow, I don't think a public cry for less beer is going to happen anytime soon.

[tripp]

The simple answer is to charge what the water's worth. Water is probably artificially cheap and that's why there's so much waste. The mayor is stressing simple conservation because it's the most expedient method to make an impact. There's a massive amount of low hanging fruit. Pulling peoples' heads out of their arses will have an immediate impact on water consumption. The other way is to increase the cost, which will have the same effect, probably more quickly, but with a lot more whinging.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Originally Posted by richard schumacher

We just have to build them faster. Water at $0.01 per gallon is better than a mandatory 20% reduction.

It's very unlikely that a Desal plant can make potable water at that price considering future energy costs. Keep in mind that it is very unlikely that agriculture can be economically viable on Desal water, so the there must be intelligent management of the resources regardless of how many plants were to be built.