California's Water Crisis. Why?

[F8L]

Godiva,

Know that I am not picking on SoCalers this time. I'm picking on everyone equally, myself included. I do not feel that residential units should be put far down the list because they play a huge role in total water usage and should be held accountable. "every drop" counts as far as I'm concerned and if people in all sectors are held accountable then progress can be made. As long as people treat water with a "Hotel Mentality" (where extra use of energy or water doesn't cost them anything) then we will continue losing this battle.

Of course there will be legislative hurdles like you suggest but this is not simpl a case of "it would be nice if", this is a case of "we have to do something" and it is imperitive that we do something soon. In the words of California Farm Bureau Federation President Doug Mosebar; "When people hear the term 'water crisis', they think of something that's far away," "But for family farmers, ranchers and their employees, the crisis is here and now." This applies directly to environmental conservation concerns as well.

If you are interested in hearing from the agricultural side of things check out the CFBF publication "AgAlert"

If you care about the environmental side of the issue see the NRDC link in the first thread or I can supply you with other information from the CA Dept. of Fish & Game and UC Davis Extension.

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by F8L

Godiva,

Know that I am not picking on SoCalers this time. I'm picking on everyone equally, myself included. I do not feel that residential units should be put far down the list because they play a huge role in total water usage and should be held accountable. "every drop" counts as far as I'm concerned and if people in all sectors are held accountable then progress can be made. As long as people treat water with a "Hotel Mentality" (where extra use of energy or water doesn't cost them anything) then we will continue losing this battle.

But you are.

As long as there are municipalities that don't have water meters and don't charge for water, as long as agriculture is allows to just dump water so they can maintain their allocation, everyone is NOT being treated equally.

Why should I conserve only to have the water I save wasted by agriculture?

Why should I pay more only so those that don't pay at all can continue to waste it?

As far as I'm concerned EVERYONE should be on the meter. And that includes agriculture.

And everyone should have tiered rates. The more you use, the more you pay.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by Godiva

As long as there are municipalities that don't have water meters and don't charge for water, as long as agriculture is allows to just dump water so they can maintain their allocation, everyone is NOT being treated equally.

Why should I conserve only to have the water I save wasted by agriculture?

Why should I pay more only so those that don't pay at all can continue to waste it?

Because it is the right thing to do, period. If more people were being charged for the water they use AND they were aware of the amount of "cheaper" water wasted by industry or agriculture then policies and regulations would change because people would be pissed and would vote differently. Unfortunately no one wants to take the time to learn about the issues until it hits their wallet. lol

As far as I'm concerned EVERYONE should be on the meter. And that includes agriculture.

And everyone should have tiered rates. The more you use, the more you pay.

We are on the same page here. That is my point in this thread. Bring awareness of the bills being pushed forward so they get voted on correctly. If no one is aware of the issues they will cimply refuse to vote on a change that costs them extra money. With proper awareness many people would vote in favor of policies that benefit us in the long term.

My only exception is with respects to agiculture. The cannot be billed on the same rates because of the amounts used and what it is used for, creating food. They should however be charged in such a manner so as to make irrigation retrofits a priority and with grants, tax incentives and conservation easements they would be able to afford these upgrades.

[Devil's Advocate]

California has a water crisis for three reasons:
1. Its a Desert. Duh
2. No new water reserves have been developed in decades and with the reduction in available water for smelt and what not the remaining existing water system has been overtaxed.
3. 80% of California's water is used for agriculture and NOT residential or drinking water. farmers are unwilling or unable due to cost to implement less water wasting irrigation techniques.

[carz89]

Originally Posted by Godiva

Our (Republican) Mayor has blocked any legislation regarding recycling of water, labeling it "Toilet to Tap" to make sure it conjures up a really disgusting image in the voter's minds.

The City isn't quite Bankrupt but is more focused on the fiscal mismanagement regarding the city pension and our lousy credit rating due to long overdue audits.

Thus no investment in infrastructure or the building of desalinization plants, etc.

Why the reference to "Republican"? We have enough nasty political wars with the upcoming election that we really don't need to talk down to one party or another on a PriusChat forum.

To get the facts straight, Mayor Sanders fully understands the environmental benefits and scientific merit of wastewater recycling. His actual reason for vetoing the bill was that he deemed it was not the best use of financial resources at this time, and that San Diego had other priorities of immediate concern, including the cities' infrastructure problems.

Furthermore, he did not label it "toilet to tap". That was done over a decade ago when wastewater recycling was more in its infancy and the technology wasn't as effective as it is now. Someone (could have been the media) coined the phrase, and now the MEDIA perpetuates it to sell their story to the ignorant masses who eat up that sort of sensationalism.

Mayor Sander's intent has never been to "conjur up disgusting images", as you claim. In the long run, given better financial circumstances, he would give his support to the concept. His veto wasn't a "republican" thing. Rather, it's the action to establish priorities in an incredibly delicate and difficult balancing act.

[mingoglia]

Originally Posted by carz89

Why the reference to "Republican"? We have enough nasty political wars with the upcoming election that we really don't need to talk down to one party or another on a PriusChat forum.

<snip>

Mayor Sander's intent has never been to "conjur up disgusting images", as you claim. In the long run, given better financial circumstances, he would give his support to the concept. His veto wasn't a "republican" thing. Rather, it's the action to establish priorities in an incredibly delicate and difficult balancing act.

This is a pet peeve of mine as well. There's so many angry, hateful, partisan folks on this forum it's sickening. Very quick to always throw the political bomb whenever the opportunity arises. There's one thing to sarcastically throw out a jab every now and then.... the ones I have a problem with are the ones that truly come across as hateful in tone. These jabs solve nothing and only drive more of a wedge between Americans.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

California has a water crisis for three reasons:
1. Its a Desert. Duh
2. No new water reserves have been developed in decades and with the reduction in available water for smelt and what not the remaining existing water system has been overtaxed.
3. 80% of California's water is used for agriculture and NOT residential or drinking water. farmers are unwilling or unable due to cost to implement less water wasting irrigation techniques.

#1 California is not "a desert". True it contains 2 major desert environments (Colorado and Mojave) totalling over 1/5th of the state. but to categorize the entire state as a desert is a bit misleading. If you are making the arguement that the state sends too much nothern-based water to desert environments then I have no rebuttal. It's true.

#2 I'm curious what you mean by water reserves. Do you mean reservoirs? There are a number of projects invloving the resoration of high elevation wetlands to capture and store water by natural means. These projects have been shown to increase water flows in the fall when water sources are generally at their lowest. Butte County has an excellent study on the subject but the name eludes me at the moment. There is a big push for the retention of open space and riparian restoration which aids in flood control and water retention. This is opposed to the typical histrorical response to flood control which involved building levees and concrete "schutes" that would swiftly channel water into larger waterways and out into the ocean. We are now starting to view this as a bad practice. Maybe we'll stop building houses in flood zones as well.

#3 Don't get us lost in percentages as those can be misleading. Misuse of "residential" water does play a large part in the water issues regardless of total percentage. I do agree that argiculture plays a larger part in the water usuage total and something must be done to push and enable farmers to make the neccessary upgrades. In some cases conservation easements allow the funding for such projects as well as state funded grants. I do not feel putting all the pressure on agriculture and none on residential and city municipalities is the answer. That's no different than saying "My neighbor won't change so why should I?" That is a terrible mentality when trying to create change. We (the total community) are being overly wasteful so suck it up and make changes. I'm pointing my finger at myself here too. I need to do better.

[carz89]

Originally Posted by F8L

Unfortunately there are too many pitfalls with nuclear to even consider it as a method of allowing unlimited use of energy and water.

Granted, there aren't any easy solutions to appease everyone's concerns over the environment and energy/water resources, given that every solution is intricately woven between the benefits and pitfalls, the science, politics, cost, and waste, and public perception. But, your statement of "too many pitfalls with nuclear" is both vague and misleading. It is absolutely untrue, especially when compared scientifically to all the other options out there.

Most scientists, including environmental engineers and scientists, acknowledge that the public resistance and media pummeling of nuclear power is due to a fear of the unknown. In many public outreach experiments, employing moderate educational awareness of the pros and cons of nuclear power, and of the science of nuclear power generation (cradle to grave), public opinion has proven to lend positive support to nuclear power electricity generation.

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by F8L

#1 California is not "a desert". True it contains 2 major desert environments (Colorado and Mojave) totalling over 1/5th of the state. but to categorize the entire state as a desert is a bit misleading. <snip>

It may not be technically a desert, but much of Southern California is effectively desert. Fly over San Diego and look south to Tijuana. You can see a clear line where the irrigation ends. Without massive irrigation San Diego would be dry and brown just like Tijuana.

Why is it that people in dry locations insist on having lush vegetation? Las Vegas is positively fascinated with water. Having a lawn in Las Vegas or San Diego is like me heating my yard in the winter to keep my grass green. I just don't get it.

Tom

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by F8L

Richard, if nuclear power did not require the use of a rare earth resources (that play havok with national security), cost so damned much to build and maintain, and they produced zero waste then it could be an alternative. Infortunately there are too many pitfalls with nuclear to even consider it as a method of allowing unlimited use of energy and water. <snip>

Nuclear fission is one of the cleanest and safest alternatives we have at the moment. Unfortunately, we have suffered several decades of anti-nuclear hysteria that continues to this day. It's not a panacea, and certainly isn't cheap enough to allow for unmetered energy, but it is a good and viable source of power which we need as a bridge to other sustainable energy sources. Fusion will be even better if we can get there, but who knows when if ever that will be commercially feasible.

Tom