Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Newport Coast, California
471 posts, read 598,401 times
Reputation: 1141

Advertisements

If we are going to have a discussion about the best allocation for water let's consider all important facts, rather than just those facts important to a particular sub-group of Californians (special interests and such).

50% of the water flows out to the ocean. Our northers reservoirs have been drained to support the Delta Smelt, a non-native fish. All this talk of native plants and yet we drain the reservoirs to support a non-native fish.

Why would he not try to force Big Ag to take a water cut, when they use more than 80% of all the water? Instead he goes on and on about long showers and lawns, which constitutes about 3% of the water usage?

Era of limits? If the Governor really believes what he is saying, why would he seek to increase CA's population as he has done, e.g., welcoming those illegally-present to remain in the state; going to Mexico to work out a deal to bring more people into CA even though CA's unemployment of citizens has been at an unacceptable level for years? Not to mention the burden that the increasing population bring on the environment and infrastructure. He's been claiming that for 40 years, yet keeps advocating for more people.

Some radicals are "begging" for a water rate increase, which will do nothing to the wealthy, but punish the little guy, when the little guy uses so little water. That rate increase is just paying more for the same good, those calling for a massive rate increase aren't asking for investment in infrastructure to increase the water supply, just penalty driven "solutions" that hopefully will force mean rich people to use less water, BTW, it won't. Drought-Stricken California’s Wealthy Pay Up to Keep Lawns Lush

Even the few rich use little, when compared to the water hogs like Almonds, most of which go to China.

I take this drought seriously, but I look to real meaningful solutions, like increasing the water supply, not hysterics and handwaving, not feel good measures that are punitive but do little to fix the problem.

I hope more people become educated about this subject, because if you care, you'd demand meaningful action that addresses the systematic problems, rather than empty "feel good" legislation.

Last edited by GoldenZephyr; 04-17-2015 at 08:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:57 AM
 
Location: So Ca
26,619 posts, read 26,529,806 times
Reputation: 24615
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr View Post
Why would he not try to force Big Ag to take a water cut, when they use more than 80% of all the water? Instead he goes on and on about long showers and lawns, which constitutes about 3% of the water usage?
I'm with you. I also don't understand why we continue to build housing developments to attract even more people when we don't have enough water for the existing population.

Gotta agree with Mulholland here: William Mulholland: L.A.'s original champion of water conservation - LA Times

"Politicians and titans of business paid little attention to Mulholland's warnings 100 years ago, and capping growth is political anathema today."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:18 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,086 posts, read 107,113,138 times
Reputation: 115875
Not another smelt and illegals rant.

You know, your time would be better spent writing to the Guv and your legislators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 09:44 AM
 
Location: San Diego
50,087 posts, read 46,672,829 times
Reputation: 33934
I'd have to agree. We don't need 10K new, expensive homes in the Mission Valley area. This isn't affordable housing. This isn't going to pull people out of cheap apartments, it's going to draw in people from outside the area. Normally this would be great but we can't be adding while they are screaming and threatening us to cut water use.

Californians Won’t Take the Drought Seriously Until Government Takes the Drought Seriously With These 5 Measures
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,753 posts, read 25,971,458 times
Reputation: 33866
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr View Post
If we are going to have a discussion about the best allocation for water let's consider all important facts, rather than just those facts important to a particular sub-group of Californians (special interests and such).

50% of the water flows out to the ocean. Our northers reservoirs have been drained to support the Delta Smelt, a non-native fish. All this talk of native plants and yet we drain the reservoirs to support a non-native fish.

Why would he not try to force Big Ag to take a water cut, when they use more than 80% of all the water? Instead he goes on and on about long showers and lawns, which constitutes about 3% of the water usage?

Era of limits? If the Governor really believes what he is saying, why would he seek to increase CA's population as he has done, e.g., welcoming those illegally-present to remain in the state; going to Mexico to work out a deal to bring more people into CA even though CA's unemployment of citizens has been at an unacceptable level for years? Not to mention the burden that the increasing population bring on the environment and infrastructure. He's been claiming that for 40 years, yet keeps advocating for more people.

Some radicals are "begging" for a water rate increase, which will do nothing to the wealthy, but punish the little guy, when the little guy uses so little water. That rate increase is just paying more for the same good, those calling for a massive rate increase aren't asking for investment in infrastructure to increase the water supply, just penalty driven "solutions" that hopefully will force mean rich people to use less water, BTW, it won't. Drought-Stricken California’s Wealthy Pay Up to Keep Lawns Lush

Even the few rich use little, when compared to the water hogs like Almonds, most of which go to China.

I take this drought seriously, but I look to real meaningful solutions, like increasing the water supply, not hysterics and handwaving, not feel good measures that are punitive but do little to fix the problem.

I hope more people become educated about this subject, because if you care, you'd demand meaningful action that addresses the systematic problems, rather than empty "feel good" legislation.
Source please?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Newport Coast, California
471 posts, read 598,401 times
Reputation: 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Source please?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/bu...-low.html?_r=1

Robert Glennon » Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What To Do About It


What do these and other radicals have in common. They are begging for huge rate increases to residential users while ignoring that 95% of the water is used elsewhere Agriculture, Industry or flushed out to sea.

Mostly they go on rants and tirades about the same things, lawns, showers, glasses of water in restaurants. Collectively these things are less than 2% of total water use. But it's a huge deal to these radicals.

So why do they hate lawns, and showers when they comprise such a small part of the water ecology? Simple, they are radical leftists who hate suburban life what it represents to them. When given the power, will do all they can to attack that community and way of life.

That's why there has been no talk of increasing the water supply, only higher prices. No talk of massive investment, just charge people more and of course, mostly just residential users.

If they were actually serious about the drought, they would go after the 80% of water usage. But the left doesn't even address it, which makes it hard to believe that they take the drought seriously and aren't just pushing a political agenda.

California almond growers to expand orchards, despite drought BTW Almonds use more water than every resident and business in Los Angeles and San Francisco combined and half the crop is exported to China. If we are in such a water crisis, why are we effectively exporting our water for private profit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,133,738 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/bu...-low.html?_r=1

Robert Glennon » Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What To Do About It


What do these and other radicals have in common. They are begging for huge rate increases to residential users while ignoring that 95% of the water is used elsewhere Agriculture, Industry or flushed out to sea.

Mostly they go on rants and tirades about the same things, lawns, showers, glasses of water in restaurants. Collectively these things are less than 2% of total water use. But it's a huge deal to these radicals.

So why do they hate lawns, and showers when they comprise such a small part of the water ecology? Simple, they are radical leftists who hate suburban life what it represents to them. When given the power, will do all they can to attack that community and way of life.

That's why there has been no talk of increasing the water supply, only higher prices. No talk of massive investment, just charge people more and of course, mostly just residential users.

If they were actually serious about the drought, they would go after the 80% of water usage. But the left doesn't even address it, which makes it hard to believe that they take the drought seriously and aren't just pushing a political agenda.

California almond growers to expand orchards, despite drought BTW Almonds use more water than every resident and business in Los Angeles and San Francisco combined and half the crop is exported to China. If we are in such a water crisis, why are we effectively exporting our water for private profit?
Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you a bit here. I'd be a bit more measured in those comments, but I pretty much agree with your overall sentiments.

It seems like rather than an objective "top down" approach to reasonable water allocation and management, this is somewhat being used to advance agendas against suburban lifestyles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 04:28 PM
 
Location: in a galaxy far far away
19,134 posts, read 16,528,029 times
Reputation: 33196
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
I'd have to agree. We don't need 10K new, expensive homes in the Mission Valley area. This isn't affordable housing. This isn't going to pull people out of cheap apartments, it's going to draw in people from outside the area. Normally this would be great but we can't be adding while they are screaming and threatening us to cut water use.

Californians Won’t Take the Drought Seriously Until Government Takes the Drought Seriously With These 5 Measures

Good article

A couple of things, however, aren't correct. Maybe the author didn't research it enough.

First, golf course have been using recycled water for quite some time. They've been proactive on that, long before the governor noticed or mentioned the other day in his meeting with businessmen in the area. Second, farmers have been pulling up their old almond trees and replacing them with smaller younger ones. The younger the almond tree, the less water it takes for them to grow. Surprisingly, almond trees don't take the majority of water to produce. Yet, that's what people are screaming about. Especially around here.


What happens if US loses California food production? | Tree Nuts content from Western Farm Press

A snippet from the article:

Quote:
About 73 percent of the state’s ag revenues are derived from crops while the other 27 percent of revenues are generated by livestock commodities. In terms of revenue generated, California’s top five ag products are dairy products, greenhouse and nursery products, grapes, almonds, and cattle and calves. California agriculture generates roughly $37.5 billion annually, more than any other state.
A few nights ago, CBS did a report on just how much water it takes to grow certain foods. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the story online but here's a good example of what was reported. To grow one single almond it takes one gallon of water. To grow one head of lettuce it takes three-and-a-half gallons of water. And to grow one walnut, it takes five gallons of water.

If we stop producing food crops, the state will find other ways to bring in the money they need to keep the state running. Guess who will have to pick up the slack? Oh wait. That would be us who live here.

Placing a 25% reduction on residential use is not going to fix the problem since agriculture uses the majority of water in the state. Yet, it won't hurt anything by doing so. Penalizing people with fines is atrocious and just another scheme to make homeowners pay. Just stupid. But I totally agree with you about new construction. Although, I did hear that some developers are building homes with minimal landscaping and no lawn. They are changing out traditional lawns with more drought tolerant planting and using rock, gravel, and cement in its place.

Even if normal rainfall returns to the state, changes need to be made in how we go forward. The population - both California and the world - is going to continue to increase. Unless we find new ways to make it sustainable, the current situation we face will only continue on. Some want to stick their head in the sand and say it will get better but they don't know that for sure and, in the meantime, we still see population increasing and not enough water to accommodate everyone
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 10:52 PM
 
Location: Cali
3,951 posts, read 7,170,888 times
Reputation: 2293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Not another smelt and illegals rant.

You know, your time would be better spent writing to the Guv and your legislators.
We write to them but they're all in denial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,501 posts, read 37,009,555 times
Reputation: 13972
This is not helpful..... Fracking Poisons California's Water*|*Dr. Reese Halter
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top