California's Water Crisis. Why?

[F8L]

Originally Posted by Godiva

BTW I don't have a lawn, my planters are on drip with timers and are only on 6 months of the year. Low flow everything. I have a recycling washer. That's right. I can use the same tub of water for two different loads of laundry. I only do laundry twice a month. I bought extra clothes, sheets and towels to reduce the number of times I have to do laundry. And I'm now installing a small dishwasher because I read a dishwasher uses less water than hand washing. I don't run the faucet when I brush my teeth. I even have a dish under the dog's "lick-it spiggot" outside to catch his dribbles.

What am I supposed to do to cut my use 10%? Cut my bathing to once a week on Saturday night?

You are in the minority though Godiva. You do all sorts of upgrades that make your lifestyle more sustainable and I think it's awesome. I just wish more people did the same. I do not think you are the one who needs to cut back another 10%. It is the rest of the population who has not made any changes to their water usage, ever.

[qbee42]

I live in the middle of 1/5 of the world's surface fresh water. We have enough fresh water to cover the 48 contiguous states to a depth of 9.5 feet. For us, the cost of fresh water is mostly the cost of running a pump. Even so, we have water meters. Why? Because it costs something to pump that water. I don't water my lawn, I don't leave the faucet running when I brush my teeth. Why waste energy and resources when you don't need too?

Tom

[RonH]

Originally Posted by Sufferin' Prius Envy

I don't have a water meter.
Nanna, nannaaa, nann-ah

And so, without out all those socal tax dollars, sac town would be, what?, modesto?

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by Godiva

Who is going to vote for me?

I've done my time on the Area Planning Committee and the Redevelopment Board and the Neighborhood Association.

If I run for anything, it would be school board. But I'm not willing to go into debt even for that. I have no political connections. None of the local politcal parties know who I am.

I vote. Every election. And I go down to City Council on occasion to express my views. Not that it does any good. The city is basically being run by the staff. No one challenges them on anything they "recommend". I see the same thing happening with the school board now.

BTW I don't have a lawn, my planters are on drip with timers and are only on 6 months of the year. Low flow everything. I have a recycling washer. That's right. I can use the same tub of water for two different loads of laundry. I only do laundry twice a month. I bought extra clothes, sheets and towels to reduce the number of times I have to do laundry. And I'm now installing a small dishwasher because I read a dishwasher uses less water than hand washing. I don't run the faucet when I brush my teeth. I even have a dish under the dog's "lick-it spiggot" outside to catch his dribbles.

What am I supposed to do to cut my use 10%? Cut my bathing to once a week on Saturday night?

Sounds like you do everything you can to conserve water. And it's axiomatic that the closer you get to the optimum, the less percentage of waste can be made.

Why not the school board? It's a start. Where we live, in the Florida panhandle, you'll see what almost amounts to inbreeding governmentally. People move from post to post because they want to help, so you'll see a county commissioner leave that job, become active in the chamber of commerce or the board of realtors, then do something with other committees (only five city governments in our county). A few go to state legislature or Congress, then come back home and do something else. There are only 177,000 living in the county, so the talent pool is pretty small. But the leaders really are talented and have the best interests of the area at heart (of course, there are a few exceptions but they don't last long). So go ahead and run for the school board; you can make a difference.

[richard schumacher]

Yep, ten years... Let's talk again after people have been limited to one shower per week and running their air conditioners for three hours per day for a while, and see whether they think nuclear power is too expensive. God help us if they turn to coal because they think it will cost a little less. Of course we'll have wind and Solar power, but they can't do the whole job. We'll be lucky if they can provide 30% of the energy we need.

This may help others calibrate my opinions:
- I once voted in California to oppose expansion of nuclear power.
- My household has been paying for 100% wind power from Green Mountain Energy for three years.
- I pledge that in the same week that my state requires utilities to buy back domestic Solar power at the prevailing retail rate I will contract to have Solar PV panels installed on my house.

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by richard schumacher

Yep, ten years... Let's talk again after people have been limited to one shower per week and running their air conditioners for three hours per day for a while, and see whether they think nuclear power is too expensive. God help us if they turn to coal because they think it will cost a little less.

Of course we'll have wind and Solar power, but they can't do the whole job. We'll be lucky if they can provide 30% of the energy we need.

Solar is my preference, because the cost is limited to the equipment -- until politicians figure out a way to charge for or tax sunlight. Technically, that may be a long way off. Wind will work individually, but storage becomes an issue. Nuclear is the best general source for now, since it simply supplants coal- and gas-fired generation and leaves distribution intact. Cost will decline as more plants are built and competition (that is NOT a dirty word) allows for lower prices. Spent rod disposal and safety issues can be addressed fairly easily, as long as the politicians either do their job or get out of the way.

[thepolarcrew]

I think you (CA have a population problem) Can't keep up with the air, water, oil, electric. Going to have to foreclose! Oh ya, they are already doing that. "Where you going to Run?"

Seriously, You might have to consider restricting the farms and amount they use for irrigation. These systems aren't very efficient.

Could put a straw in the artic and pump durring the summer using wind.

[skruse]

We have a water meter and were on a metered rate in 1989. We planted a drought-tolerant, native plant front yard (no lawn) that is appropriate to the semiarid climate. Use of water meters was outlawed, then reinstated by federal and state law. Fresno continues to NOT charge a metered rate "because we wouldn't know what to charge." Hogwash. Every user should be on double meters (fresh & used) because even when water is unlimited, it still takes energy to move and treat the water. Fresno substitutes water for knowledge and acts like it is located in Indiana. Absurd.

The California Department of Water Resources, guided by several pieces of legislation is continuously putting on workshops around the state and implementing "Best Management Practices." The first tier of BMPs are the easy one and have been imposed for the most part. Tier two BMPs are coming and DWR is making every effort to write and implement what is mandated by state law as well as offering grants to communities.

Industrial agriculture has controlled 80% of California water since the 1880s. There is a confusing and conflicting mix of federal and state water systems and no one wants to give up anything. The Central Valley Improvement Act (1988, Bush) imposed the Public Trust Doctrine and mandated that the San Joaquin River and associated salmon runs be restored. Despite successful lawsuits and legislation, the "Water Bison" have yet to open a valve. The largest growers are on the west side of the Great Central Valley, in the rain shadow of the coast range, and grow water intensive crops (alfalfa, safflower, cotton, treefruit, maize) that are not climate appropriate. The soils, derived from Coast Range metavolcanics, contain heavy metals and salts. Salts continue to accumulate from antiquated irrigations methods (flood furrow vs. microjet an drip). Summer temperatures produce very high evapotranspiration rates and much irrigation water is lost to the atmosphere. It was recognized in 1890 when west side alkali soils began to be farmed that agriculture had about 100 years. We are now at 120 years. Federal subsidies for land, water and crops encourage wasteful water use and continued growing of water intensive crops.

The Governor declared a "drought" this year in an effort to build more dams (at $3 billion each) and a canal through the Sacramento - San Joaquin estuary. There is no "new" water to fill the dams and the public has repeatedly turned down canal proposals through the estuary. A homeowner in Sacramento was cited and fined $800 for not watering their front lawn this summer - despite pointing out the governor's "drought" declaration.

The present California water system is overly optimistic and was built to serve 20 million people. Primarily the system moves water from the Sacramento River drainage in the north to southern California. California is currently at 38 million. Instead of "build it and the water will come" current law now mandates that the source of water be identified before new homes are built. Most communities live beyond carrying capacity and are dependent on imported or pumped groundwater. Many people now recognize that water is moved south, at the expense of the northern part of the state and the estuary, to support continued southern California development and sprawl.

Federal and state legislation and Best Management Practices are helping to increase water efficiency and ecosystem restoration. The Mono Lake lawsuit and subsequent promulgated law, including the Public Trust Doctrine is bringing change - although at too slow a rate. Global climate change is recognized as adversely affecting California.

Efficiency and conservation is taking hold, but we are "muddling toward frugality." Most people are not sincere in their understanding or use of water in California. Drive through any Great Central Valley community and water runs down gutters and homes have lawns. California is in for a "great awakening" regarding water, resources, food, energy and land. Hang on tight.

[thepolarcrew]

Back when, we did a water project, Garrison Diversion. It created a series of dams with hydro electric with flood control as a guise. To make a long story short, the southern states got what they wanted, water for barge traffic. We were suppose to get water to the East for irrigation, and drinking. We have neither, we really don't need the irrigation, (Some would ague other wise) but could use it for industry and drinking.

Goes back to Gov!

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by F8L

I do not think you are the one who needs to cut back another 10%. It is the rest of the population who has not made any changes to their water usage, ever.

But I will be expected to cut back just like everyone else. They don't look at whose been cutting back all along. They just look at if you're using less than last year and the overall picture.

So far this year we're at about 3% less than last year. The Mayor says it's not enough.

So while some keep watering their lawns (and golf courses) the rest have to make up the difference. The Mayor is talking about "mandatory" cut backs. And still not talk of any new sources such as desalination or recycling. Now how are they going to make it mandatory? Well, they'll look at our bills and whoever isn't using 10% less than last year will probably get fined.

That will be me.