California's Water Crisis

[dswynne1]

The problem with droughts is not a resource problem, or a distribution problem; it's a political/economic/environmental problem. Not only do you have turf battles going on between jurisdictions, but you have the costs in upgrading a rather old water distribution system. Coupled that with the environmentalists religious need to preserve the environment, you have this crisis.

Simple solution, some of which has already been alluded to:

1) Peg cost of water to actual market. Yes, water will be more expensive, but it will force businesses and consumers to cut down consumption w/o the need to have direct oversight.
2) Overturn the authority of the homeowners association. Allow residents to seek alternatives to that of traditional lawns (including the use of astroturf or drought resistant grass).
3) Recycle ALL waste water. Yes, that means you can drink you own "pee". And, if you don't want to use that water for direct consumption, sell it back to the farmers at cost.
4) Desalination. 'Nuff said.
5) Upgrade infrastructure. 70 percent of rainfall is wasted. We can do better than that.

All we need is a bit of faith and reason, and we can beat this thing. Namaste.

I'm not sure what the dig at environmentalists was for. Environmentalists didn't create this problem whatsoever: dramatic overuse of limited water resources did.

This is why:

http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/...t-environmental-group-sues-drain-hetch-hetchy

And these clowns have been trying to drain the reservoir since it was created from Day One.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

They've been trying to get it drained for 100 years, then?

Doesn't sound like they've had much luck, so I don't know what you're concerned about.

Maybe you should focus on the actual drought.

 

[dswynne1]

They've been trying to get it drained for 100 years, then?

Doesn't sound like they've had much luck, so I don't know what you're concerned about.

Maybe you should focus on the actual drought.

Or maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive by a) reading tha article that I provided, and, b) actually contribute to a serious discussion by examining ALL contributing factors, as to why there is a drought problem. Like it or not, politics play heavily in this crisis.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Environmentalists in no way contributed to this crisis. To claim otherwise is extremely dishonest.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah. The lawsuit seeking to drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir at some unspecified point in the future, assuming it ever happens, has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought happening in the here and now. If that's all the blame environmentalists deserve for the drought, then it's no blame at all.

 

[dswynne1]

Environmentalists in no way contributed to this crisis. To claim otherwise is extremely dishonest.

So, they operate in a vacuum. Uh-huh, right. Too bad you continue to ignore the salient point that politics play heavily in this crisis. To, as you put it, claim otherwise is extremely dishonest, particularly sense these people, in spite of the drought, still want to drain the reservoir, during a drought crisis, after losing both the referendum and support by the state legislature.

But, as I stated, politics do play heavily in this crisis. And I while I personally hold environmentalists responsible as the key contributors to this problem, there are additional contributing factors in this crisis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-california.html?_r=0

Just want to be as fair as possible on this issue, though you are probably going to dismiss this other article as well, I bet.

 

[dswynne1]

Yeah. The lawsuit seeking to drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir at some unspecified point in the future, assuming it ever happens, has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought happening in the here and now. If that's all the blame environmentalists deserve for the drought, then it's no blame at all.

If you say so. The fact of the matter is that environmentalists make if difficult to get new reservoir projects under way, and do seek to dismantle old ones as a way of "restoring the ecological balance". You couple that with the fact that the state is horrible about planning these things due to politics and "turf wars" (as mentioned in the article that i linked), you have the present problem. So, again, there is not so much of a resource problem, but rather a political problem.

But I personally see environmentalists as being the most culpable in this problem, IMO.

 

[Ithekro]

Another problem, that is related, is the blocking on new power plants. And the blocking on nuclear power plants specifically. That is power generation that would be needed if California was to build the requested desalinization plants that were suggested as far back as the 1970s. Those things are not cheap on power to run.

There are several under desalinization plants under construction in California with 17 being the listed number built or in planning at this point in time.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah. The lawsuit seeking to drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir at some unspecified point in the future, assuming it ever happens, has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought happening in the here and now. If that's all the blame environmentalists deserve for the drought, then it's no blame at all.

If you say so. The fact of the matter is that environmentalists make if difficult to get new reservoir projects under way, and do seek to dismantle old ones as a way of "restoring the ecological balance". You couple that with the fact that the state is horrible about planning these things due to politics and "turf wars" (as mentioned in the article that i linked), you have the present problem. So, again, there is not so much of a resource problem, but rather a political problem.

But I personally see environmentalists as being the most culpable in this problem, IMO.

Well, that's a goalpost shift, if I ever saw one. To recap: you posted a link that you claimed said why environmentalists were responsible for the drought, Robert Maxwell and I each read the linked-to article and concluded that it did nothing of the kind, and said so. To that series of events, "If you say so," is a completely pathetic response, made all the more so by your goalpost shift to make another claim (boldfaced) not even touched upon at all in the article you linked to regarding Hetch Hetchy Reservoir.

If you'd like to support your new claim, and demonstrate how that supports your original claim about environmentalists being largely responsible for the present drought, then I suggest you actually, you know, back it all up with some sort of citation(s). Something more substantial than an OP-ED in the New York Times, please.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah. The lawsuit seeking to drain Hetch Hetchy Reservoir at some unspecified point in the future, assuming it ever happens, has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought happening in the here and now. If that's all the blame environmentalists deserve for the drought, then it's no blame at all.

If you say so. The fact of the matter is that environmentalists make if difficult to get new reservoir projects under way, and do seek to dismantle old ones as a way of "restoring the ecological balance". You couple that with the fact that the state is horrible about planning these things due to politics and "turf wars" (as mentioned in the article that i linked), you have the present problem. So, again, there is not so much of a resource problem, but rather a political problem.

But I personally see environmentalists as being the most culpable in this problem, IMO.

It doesn't matter what you "personally see," it matters what is. And what "is" right now is a) a massive, lengthy drought and b) rapidly-draining aquifers. You can't fix either of those merely by building more reservoirs or even preserving existing ones. You can't get blood from a turnip, and you can't fill a reservoir when there's no water to put in it. Pretty basic logic there. Environmentalists didn't cause the drought and they aren't causing the aquifers to drain. Those are facts.

Yes, the issue is political, but the politics of it barely involve environmentalists at all.

 

[farmkid]

Don't give environmentalists a pass here. California hasn't increased water storage in decades, and not for lack of trying either. Every attempt to do so has been blocked by opposition and lawsuits from environmentalists.

About half of the water that falls in California is goes right down the rivers and streams and cannot be captured and managed at all. Of the other half that is managed, about half is sent down the river and not used for agriculture or other human use. Instead it is used for environmental purposes, such as protecting the delta smelt.

Sure, the drought has certainly reduced the amount of water available, but there would be more water stored from previous years if the environmental lobby hadn't stopped those projects. There would be more water for crops, drinking, watering lawns, etc. if there wasn't so much water going to mandated environmental uses. Deny it if you want, but the politics of the environmentalists has played a significant role in the amount of water available for human use.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Speaking just for myself, I wasn't dismissing the idea that environmentalists may have had an impact on water management. However, I was refuting the notion that a source supporting that claim had been provided. I would appreciate anyone able to cite sources to support their point of view doing so. That just hasn't been done so far.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Don't give environmentalists a pass here. California hasn't increased water storage in decades, and not for lack of trying either. Every attempt to do so has been blocked by opposition and lawsuits from environmentalists.

About half of the water that falls in California is goes right down the rivers and streams and cannot be captured and managed at all. Of the other half that is managed, about half is sent down the river and not used for agriculture or other human use. Instead it is used for environmental purposes, such as protecting the delta smelt.

Sure, the drought has certainly reduced the amount of water available, but there would be more water stored from previous years if the environmental lobby hadn't stopped those projects. There would be more water for crops, drinking, watering lawns, etc. if there wasn't so much water going to mandated environmental uses. Deny it if you want, but the politics of the environmentalists has played a significant role in the amount of water available for human use.

Nope, still wrong.

Both Nunes and Fiorina lamented the amount of water that the state wastes each year on ecological flows, with Fiorina saying that 70 percent of California’s rainfall “washes out to sea” every year.
Andrew Fahlund, deputy director of the California Water Foundation, disagrees with that number and with most everything Fiorina said.
“Thinking that building more reservoirs will get you out of a drought is like assuming that opening more checking accounts when you’ve lost your income will help you pay your bills,” he told ThinkProgress.
According to Fahlund, only 50 percent of water in California flows to the coast. Fahlund said that according to the Bureau of Reclamation’s own numbers, building the reservoirs that Fiorina is referring to would have only resulted in a net increase of one percent to the state’s water supplies.
“And by this year, the fourth year of a drought, that water would have been used up just like the water in most of the rest of the state’s reservoirs,” he said. Fahlund said the real reason the state hasn’t invested in more dams or pipelines is that no one wants to pay for them, most of all not taxpayers.
“Study after study shows that the three projects most cited by advocates of new infrastructure don’t pass any sort of cost-benefit test,” he said.

(Emphasis mine.)

 

[dswynne1]

Don't give environmentalists a pass here. California hasn't increased water storage in decades, and not for lack of trying either. Every attempt to do so has been blocked by opposition and lawsuits from environmentalists.

About half of the water that falls in California is goes right down the rivers and streams and cannot be captured and managed at all. Of the other half that is managed, about half is sent down the river and not used for agriculture or other human use. Instead it is used for environmental purposes, such as protecting the delta smelt.

Sure, the drought has certainly reduced the amount of water available, but there would be more water stored from previous years if the environmental lobby hadn't stopped those projects. There would be more water for crops, drinking, watering lawns, etc. if there wasn't so much water going to mandated environmental uses. Deny it if you want, but the politics of the environmentalists has played a significant role in the amount of water available for human use.

Nope, still wrong.

In the future, it's not good to use a biased source. Here's an example of using more balanced sources:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/...-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article23091918.html

Again, politics play heavily in this debate. Admittedly, I do have a bias, but I try to avoid using suspect sites and sources to make my case.

At any rate, this thread is being derailed by, ironically, politics, so I will concede defeat, and focus on the science and technological aspects on the drought, and what should be done about it.

I'll start: "11 Ways to fight drought"

http://www.sunset.com/garden/garden-basics/11-ways-fight-drought/page4

One of the interesting things about this article is that the solutions for homeowners is based on low-tech methods, such as root irrigation and soil sampling, both using considerably less water than simply watering the top soil.

Nevertheless, California has only few options outside of the conservation of water and law replacement (using no or genetically modified lawns), such as desalinization (expensive), drip irrigation (expensive), water recycling (expensive and "gross"). Ironically, if this drought continues, it may be that the cost of these options will become less expensive less of a concern. So, unless we can invent a Cobra Weather Machine, we'll have to settle for these low-tech means to combat this crisis.

 

[shapeshifter]

M#$%^&*&^%$#&^%$##. %^&#%^&%$, #$%^&$#!!!!!

News broke today my city is thinking about raising water rates to offset lost revenue due to water conservation by its residents.

We saved water in response to fines being threatened if we didn't.

Is something wrong with this picture?

I repeat, M#$%^&*&^%$#&^%$##. %^&#%^&%$, #$%^&$#!!!!!

 

[MANT!]

Dear Wife and I use very little water now... we shower daily, but a much reduced time and water pressure..we do our laundry only when we have full loads to do..we no longer hand wash our dishes, our new energy and water saving dishwasher does a decent enough job with 4 cups of water per cycle..we save water from our showers to water our plants and flush our toilets.. according to our water bill we use $11.00 of water every 2 months...we used to use $18.00... however, our service charge for water is about $40.00 per month (used to pay for a state of the art treatment plant that supposedly could be modified from toilet to tap with little additional expenditure)

Even if our rates were raised, it wouldn't affect us much...maybe raise our bill back to it's normal rate...it's already budgeted..so no problem.. I'm glad that our Condo is no longer watering the lawn so much..

But I am concerned that our city is still watering the street medians at 3PM in the afternoon..

I do know of one incident in which environmentalist pressure was applied to keep a water project from being built..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auburn_Dam

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-09-24/news/mn-1304_1_auburn-dam

I know, because I lived there and witnessed the battles first hand...


The only thing the state can do is manage it's limited resources...though I've heard an intriguing concept that the state cover it's irrigation canals, reducing the water lost to evaporation allowing more to be used in agriculture and transport to Southern California...


It's going to be a matter of conservation...period.