Yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down...

Sufferin' Prius Envy,

I completely agree with your points above. It's not just Socal, however. Given the shear number of people in urban areas in this country I think it applies, more and more, to just about everywhere. Look at the SE, for chrissakes. Denver water users have reduced their consumption 21% since our bad drought in 2002. It's a start but we could do much, much better. So much of our water use is, as you've pointed out... waste and excess. If we started charging what water really costs that waste would disappear rather quickly.

Of course, #5 doesn't sound particularly republican to me. It does sound like a good idea though.

Socal, vegas and Phoenix are spectacular examples of expending trillions of dollars to fight nature. We'd save a lot of effort by working with it, but then we'd have to make concessions. Before long I think we'll realize that it's a lot easier to do that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 10 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]537776[/snapback]</div>

Take Sacramento for example.
We sit on the confluence of two major rivers (the Sacramento and the American), and have some of the oldest and largest water rights in California.

Water here, except in severe droughts is more than plentiful. And even then, during our worst drought, 1977, we were still allowed to water our lawns. Lawns which by the way are required by city code. A certain percent of the front landscape MUST be lawn. How backward thinking is that?

Nowadays it's 'conservation' by watering on odd or even days, depending on your address. And here's the real kicker . . . we don't have water meters! The state has finally required Sacramento to start installing them, which will take many years. Even when the meters are installed, Sacramento has so much water, even if the city does start charging us by usage, it's still going to be cheap to water our mandatory lawns. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Nov 10 2007, 05:08 PM) [snapback]537770[/snapback]</div>

I didn't put any words in your mouth. Your post was nothing but complaints and you've said before that people shouldn't live there. There was no solution to the problems in your post, just pointing out the problem and complaints.

I asked you for a solution. The parameters I put on the solution were those that our local Republicans put on everything. It's why we don't have desalination, gray water reclamation, recycling and toilet to tap. In fact, I see the same restrictions attached to any sort of "reform" on CAFE, energy, cars, emissions, etc. by our current Administration. I hear the same restrictions in regards to Global Warming. "Change whatever you like as long as it doesn't cost anything and we can keep doing what we're doing."

Your solutions are quite the "liberal" ones aren't they, all involving the govenment enacting fascist laws intruding into the lives of its citizens. (I'm not commenting on the laws themselves, but that they represent the complete opposite of small government that Republicans claim to espouse. Especially that "Government Mandate" part. How very......"liberal".)

I didn't see you demanding that all home washers and dryers be abandoned. Washing clothes in a community laundrymat is much more efficient and water conservation as easy to enforce as at the car wash.

I also didn't see you demanding all toilets be replaced with "waterless" toilets.

All bathtubs can be removed from houses and all low flow showerheads have timers to limit them to 3 minutes.

I dare say if all of everything on your list were done, there would be an elitist segment of the population for which there would be acceptions and waivers. Only the peasants would have to comply.

My former mayor with her two water meters comes immediately to mind.

I'm not against change. I'm for any change being for EVERYONE, not just the bottom end of the caste system.

I didn't see toilet to tap, gray water or desalination on your list. While your list is a start at conservation it doesn't really handle the need for water for drinking, cooking and bathing. What So.Cal. has to do is be self-sufficient for water just as the U.S. needs be become self-sufficient for oil and NG.

First start is to put a moratorium on development. We should not be building any new houses when we don't have the water for them to use. We don't even have enough water for the people and residences we already have so we shouldn't be adding more.

That's heresy, of course. Especially to Republicans, I mean Developers, I mean Republicans. Oh, you know what I mean.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 10 2007, 03:14 PM) [snapback]537791[/snapback]</div>

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. <_<

I don't remember ever saying anything like that.

Care to provide a link to where I said people shouldn't live in So. Cal.????
If you can't, you are guilty of putting words in my mouth.

Since when is not cheering a water works project which causes massive environmental devestation a "Republican" trait?

Let's not forget. I am the registered Republican who drives a Prius and argues on the side of environmental causes. Sorry I didn't have ALL the answers for you. Maybe you should ask God. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 10 2007, 05:25 PM) [snapback]537776[/snapback]</div>

It's not just So. Cal, Vegas and Phoenix and surface water.

I understand those that use wells are having a serious impact on the water table as well.

So it's everyone.

Are we doing everything we can? No one is. (Except maybe Ed Begley?)

But pointing fingers isn't a solution. Because a finger can always be pointed.

Hoarding isn't the answer either. Then those with an excess of electricity will refuse to sell it, those with an excess of natural gas or oil will refuse to sell it. You'll stop seeing avocados in your grocery stores because those areas that grow them will refuse to ship them and sell them. Likewise, apples, oranges, cotton, steel, paper, wood, etc. The list never ends.

If you thought buying only what's produced in the U.S. is hard, trying limiting yourself to only what's produced in your state, or your county.

Mandating that everyone be self-sustaining based on what their location can support within X square miles is a nice pipe-dream, but it isn't very practical.

And it isn't going to go down very well for the haves to mandate the have nots to conserve more or do without just so the haves can continue to consume at the level they are accustomed to. That goes for a lot more than just water.

Saying "You guys should only use your own water." opens the door to "You guys should only use your own locally produced X."

 

To the original topic:
Yes, I try to let it mellow. Although, before bed, you've got to flush. To let it mellow overnight is nasty, smelly, and unsanitary. Frankly, I like to go outside and pee in the compost pile. Adds nutrients to the garden and saves water! This only works at night though. At our cabin, all urination is done outside. The hard part is explaining to a 4 your old the difference between peeing outside at a cabin in the woods and peeing outside in suburbia.

To the tangent topic:
I like the idea of ramped up cost of water for residents. Minimal cost for those using minimal amounts. Ramped up costs for the gluttonous. A yard in a desert is asanine, asi is required lawns. Here in the land of 10,000 lakes, we have no shortage of water, but we still have watering bans in the summer (odd/even watering). It has more to do with the pumping stations maintaining full water pressure from the wells. There are still far too many A-holes that feel the need to have large lush yards year round and water their lawns daily anyways. But in the last few years I've noticed a lot of folks putting in zeroscapes or even a full lawn of hostas. I applaud that effort. Saves money/gas on lawn care. The strange thing, is this is a wealthier suburb with the water bans, whereas the neighboring (less wealthy) suburb I lived in for 9 years never had bans. Over there, lawns are smaller and people aren't so obsessed with their grass. They get their water from the Mississipppi instead of wells. I actually have a friend bring me jugs of water from there every week for drinking (Mississippi water is far tastier than the well water I get now).


There used to be discussion of piping great lakes water down south, but I can tell you that will never happen. Minnesotans will not drain Lake Superior so folks in the desert can have lush green lawns. We'll fight that idea tooth and nail.

 

I think the original saying is "If it's yellow, then it's mellow, if it's brown, it goes down"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Nov 14 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]539549[/snapback]</div>

xeriscapes (xeri meaning without water, ie. using drought tolerant plants)

I think that was a pie-in-the-sky discussion anyway. I agree, it certainly won't happen easily. First, there's the U.S./Canada agreement not to take water from the Great Lakes out of the drainage basin. There is an exception for Chicago, since it reversed the flow of the Chicago River about a century ago (so they wouldn't be putting their sewage out into the lake next to the drinking water intake). Chicago's water now drains into the Mississippi River system. Some suburbs are being added into Chicago's water supply on a case-by-case basis, but only as long as we meet the internationally-agreed quota for overall water input/outtake. So it's not a matter of one governor deciding to sell water, it would be all Great Lake states and Canadian Provinces involved.

One other option that people even here don't even seem to know about is dual-flush toilets - press one button for #1 and it uses about 3/4 gallon, another for #2 and it uses the standard 1.6 gallon. Toto makes this kind, I'm not sure who else, but it's very common in parts of Europe where it's been used for years. They also have many fewer lawns in Europe. Available space is used for growing actually useful things, some of which are also ornamental (fruit trees, for instance), and grape arbors which also produce shade.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 11 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]538079[/snapback]</div>

No, I don't think you have a better solution. You too are being very 'Republican' with your "solution." <_<

We here on PriusChat bemoan SUVs - because of the size of the beasts, because of the vast quantities of gasoline they gulp, and because of the environmental damage they do. Yet, there are no laws against owning or driving an SUV. And no matter how expensive or scarce gasoline and oil become, there will always be the rich who don't care about the cost or impacts . . . and the wanna-look-cool-and-rich-crowd who will continue to drive SUVs because they wish to maintain the facade.

Without government mandates requiring better MPGs, there will always be more waste than without the mandates. The same goes for your 'solution' to water shortage and waste. Without strict government mandates like I outlined, there will always be the rich who don't care what it cost to maintain their massive lawns, pools, fountains, etc . . . and the wanna-look-cool-and-rich-crowd who will also waste water maintaining their little patch of green.

Whether we are talking gasoline or water, it's the same environmental/conservation issue.

So, do you think the government should raise the auto/SUV/light truck MPG standards?
By how much?
Or do you think the price of gasoline should be used as the catalyst for 'conservation' . . . whereby only those who can afford the extremely higher prices can drive?

How is that any different than domestic water use?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ 2007 11 14 12:00) [snapback]539587[/snapback]</div>

One of these <strike>years</strike> <strike>decades</strike> centuries, it's gonna be really cool to be seen riding a bicycle, and not even own a car.

 

If it's yellow, let it mellow
If it's brown, flush it down.

Don't forget the third line:

If it's red, use your head!

 

To the OP, yes, we let it mellow, and flush when it's brown.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 14 2007, 12:10 PM) [snapback]539564[/snapback]</div>

Nerf, I've mentioned them about 50 times. Even in this thread (post 19). They use them down under too. They're ubiquitous in NZ. They should be building code now. It's absurd that they're not.

Sufferin' I agree that mandates should be used in conjunction with the market (I'm a centrist :lol. The market can be a useful tool, but it can't work in the mid/long term because it can't "see" very far into the future. That's where intelligent policy comes into play (of course, that requires intelligent policy makers who can think long term).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 14 2007, 10:53 PM) [snapback]539787[/snapback]</div>

Tripp... couldn't agree with you more, re: the dual flush toilets being standard code now. I recently had the experience of needing to shop for a special toilet... special 10" backset, and I wanted the dual flush, as well as the ADA compliant height. I found one toilet at Home Depot that met all three of these requirements (special order, or course), and the difficult parameter to find was specifically the dual flush part. The cost on this toilet was about $550, where the standard toilets are all around $200.

Incredible. The next war is going to be on water, but how many m/billions of gallons are wasted here in the United States every day because we can't even get our mindsets changed on this. This is not changing a complicated car, for pete's sake... it's making a toilet with an extra thingy inside that either allows the toilet to flush a little water or a lot.

Another comment on European toilets... I don't know how much water lies in the bottom of the bowl, but it's a fraction of what American toilets hold. The added bonus of this is less splashing.

 

Mono Lake and the Owens Valley are a sore subject for me after having spent so much time studying the ecology of the area and taking tours with LADWP through the Owens "river" and Lake Crowley.

I LOVE the eastern Sierra!

Studying cacti at the base of Whitney Portal (Alabama Hills)


Everyone should watch a sunrise over the White and Inyo Mountains , home of the Bristlecone Pine, and cast it's warm rays upon the Sierra Nevada.


So much to see and reflect upon in Owens Valley. Manzanar Japanese Internment Camp


Ok, on topic. I just remembered. I don't flush the school urinals either. :lol:

 

Our (Republican) Mayor has just vetoed 'toilet to tap' recycling saying it's too expensive. He just wants us to conserve more. He says someday maybe the city will look into building a desalination plant.

It will take 5 votes of the City Council to override him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 14 2007, 11:36 PM) [snapback]539853[/snapback]</div>

Well, to be fair, that's the first place to start. It like when designing a solar installation for a home. Efficiency first, then design a system to fit that. I'd bet the same thing here. I think we're going to be seeing a lot of desalination plants coming on line over the next few decades. And not just in SoCal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 14 2007, 11:36 PM) [snapback]539853[/snapback]</div>

Thank God! Who would want a mayor who allowed conserving water by connecting you toilet drain to you taps. Who named this form of recycling anyway? Probably anothe who did not want it to become law.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriuStorm @ Nov 14 2007, 10:43 PM) [snapback]539840[/snapback]</div>

The other thing that I think should be code is solar water heating. We need to be saving as much NG as we can for power generation to "firm" up variable sources (wind and solar). Solar thermal for water heating is the lowest hanging fruit (that and low flow shower heads).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Nov 15 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]540246[/snapback]</div>

And an IPSWH makes that lowest of hanging fruit cheap to pick too.
http://www.motherearthnews.com/DIY/1984-01...ter-Heater.aspx

And the California Legislature passed and Governor Schwartzneiger has signed The Solar Water and Heating Efficiency Act of 2007.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50298
The goal of the program is to install 200,000 hot water systems on businesses and homes throughout state of California within ten years.