Why is there no vision, ingenuity, creativity, and leadership when it comes to water resources for CA (2014, home)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Sure let a lot of people end up unemployed and revenue to the State, Counties, Cities and businesses that sell it go away. Oh and people who prefer to drink bottled water over tap water can just ..... well you can tell them.

Production and recycling should be a full blown effort by now, not actions that .... hurt people.

In fact using your reasoning all wine, beer and alcohol production should also cease in the State. Why waste that water on drinks people do not really need. You should step up and demand it and let people know YOU want that. Save water at all costs. Yep good slogan and ... well can't say I will drink to that.

Chocolate takes the cake, so to speak. Over 2,800 gallons of water to make one serving. Compared to 31 gallons of water to bring a glass of wine to your lips.

World Water Day: The Surprising Amount Of Water Required To Produce 13 Items From Chocolate To Wine

I suggest we cut down all chocolate orchards.

[janellen]

Well, if the predictions for an El Nino do manifest this year, then Australia will go into a drought mode because that's how El Ninos affect Australia. Their worst drought years are associated with an El Nino. So, maybe they'll have use for those desal plants after all. When we're wet, they're dry.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by janellen

Well, if the predictions for an El Nino do manifest this year, then Australia will go into a drought mode because that's how El Ninos affect Australia. Their worst drought years are associated with an El Nino. So, maybe they'll have use for those desal plants after all. When we're wet, they're dry.

Ha! A solution for both therein! A pipeline between Australia and California! Brilliant! Why hasn't this been thought of before? Where are bright legislative minds when they are needed? Forget the Delta tunnels! Lay that pipe trans-Pacific!

[janellen]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Ha! A solution for both therein! A pipeline between Australia and California! Brilliant! Why hasn't this been thought of before? Where are bright legislative minds when they are needed? Forget the Delta tunnels! Lay that pipe trans-Pacific!

Forget the drought. Just tell me where the chocolate orchards are before they chop them all down. Do any of them come with almonds? Yum!

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Chocolate takes the cake, so to speak. Over 2,800 gallons of water to make one serving. Compared to 31 gallons of water to bring a glass of wine to your lips.

World Water Day: The Surprising Amount Of Water Required To Produce 13 Items From Chocolate To Wine

I suggest we cut down all chocolate orchards.

There is a limit and they will not get my chocolate unless they tear it from my cold dead ....... wait, let me rethink that.

OK ban chocolate orchards. Everyone of them. That of course will impact Africa far more than CA, but OK.

I don't need chocolate ... well I don't absolutely need it, ..... well maybe a little ... once a day maybe. Humm,

Nuts let the lawns die as chocolate taste much better.

[incognitoe]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Sure let a lot of people end up unemployed and revenue to the State, Counties, Cities and businesses that sell it go away. Oh and people who prefer to drink bottled water over tap water can just ..... well you can tell them.

Production and recycling should be a full blown effort by now, not actions that .... hurt people.

In fact using your reasoning all wine, beer and alcohol production should also cease in the State. Why waste that water on drinks people do not really need. You should step up and demand it and let people know YOU want that. Save water at all costs. Yep good slogan and ... well can't say I will drink to that.

In a time of crises, Nestle should do their part. Nestle won't go out of business, they can continue to sell the other GMO crap to consumers.

Who here actually drinks Nestle tap water anyways?

[Ultrarunner]

Isn't the entire point being if everyone does a little bit... we can get through this???

Don't see how anyone can be fair and say it's OK to force a business to move or pack up and close it's doors.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by tickyul

Very good point.

But I would say, they have to pen into the equation the obstacle that you pointed-out. Kinda like the reserve power-plants that can be kicked online when needed.......expensive, but necessary. The population is just going to grow and grow....that means increased water-demand.

The resigned assumption that "The population is just going to grow and grow" is nearly universal. That is in error. It won't. Because it can't. It's not possible to grow perpetually in a finite paradigm. It was easy for people to have become conditioned to this assumption throughout history. Biological imperative drove it for 10,000 years. "Growth" was a tacit mandate. But now consider the rate of growth:

At the dawn of agriculture, about 8000 B.C., the population of the world was approximately 5 million. Over the 8,000-year period up to 1 A.D. it grew to 200 million (some estimate 300 million or even 600, suggesting how imprecise population estimates of early historical periods can be), with a growth rate of under 0.05% per year.

A tremendous change occurred with the industrial revolution: whereas it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.
Because of declining growth rates, it will now take over 200 years to double again.

Estimates for peak growth rise as high as 16 billion. On the other hand, some studies propose that world population will actually decline to about 6 billion (from 7 billion now).

Now, here's the thing about California. Even if world population were to decline, California will remain one of the planet's most desired environments. Billions would like to live here and many will try.

So, the interesting question remains: how to control or stop growth that will choke what's left of California's most desirable coastal beauty and resources. We can't accept that "growth will continue" without absolutely destroying all quality of life and recreation here. Accommodation of growth pressures must stop.

You know, all these residential developments, both built and being proposed, aren't here to serve any human need. They are here to make developers wealthy. The world, and California specifically, doesn't need a single person more than already here.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

The last point about lifestyles: I would argue that there is a trend on that path already too. A lot of the younger crowd have an affinity for dense urban living where they necessarily have less space for stuff, have less need for cars and have no lawns to water. Today, a lot of people who want a piece of this reduced lifestyle cannot afford it. There is plenty of room to expand on this and plenty of immeasurable potential benefits that follow.

We flirt with an intelligent discussion here. A surprising venue for such

Anyway, the theme of millennials preferring a dense urban lifestyle is proven to be a myth.

Here’s the usual media narrative: Millennials prefer cities to suburbs. They love renting lofts and disdain single-family homes; they ride the subway (or take an Uber) because they barely know how to drive. Where their parents wanted green lawns and cul-de-sacs, today’s young Americans want walkable neighborhoods and local bars with plenty of craft beers on draft.

The numbers tell a different story. Whether by choice or economic circumstance, young Americans are still more likely to leave the city for the suburbs than the other way around.

According to U.S. Census Bureau data released this week, 529,000 Americans ages 25 to 29 moved from cities out to the suburbs in 2014; only 426,000 moved in the other direction. Among younger millennials, those in their early 20s, the trend was even starker: 721,000 moved out of the city, compared with 554,000 who moved in.1 Somewhat more people in both age groups currently live in the suburbs than in the city.

Indeed, for all the talk of the rebirth of American cities, the draw of the suburbs remains powerful. Across all ages, races, incomes and education groups, more Americans are still moving out of cities than in. (Urban populations are still growing, but because of births and immigration, not internal migration.)

The common narrative isn’t entirely wrong about the long-term trend lines. Millennials are moving to the suburbs at a much lower rate than past generations did at the same age. In the mid-1990s, people ages 25 to 29 were twice as likely to move from the city to the suburbs as vice versa. Today, they’re only about a quarter more likely. But even that slowdown appears to be mostly about people delaying their move to the suburbs, not forgoing it entirely. Today’s 30- to 44-year-olds are actually heading for the suburbs at a significantly faster rate than in the 1990s.
...

But a survey released earlier this year found that most millennials still want a traditional suburban experience, complete with big single-family homes. The American Community Survey, which provides a more granular look than the data released this week, tells much the same story, said Jed Kolko, chief economist of the real estate site Trulia.

“The fastest population growth right now is in the lowest-density neighborhoods, the suburb-iest suburbs,” Kolko said.

So why has the “city-loving millennials” story gained so much traction? Kolko has a theory: As American cities have become safer and more expensive, they have become increasingly dominated by the affluent and well-educated — exactly the people who drive the media narrative. Think Millennials Prefer The City? Think Again. | FiveThirtyEight

But there's really even more to the myth. The millennial urban trend, even at the lower level than the meme, isn't driven by desire anyway. It's driven by forced circumstances. Millennials are having a harder time buying real estate they want. There's a lot of sharing properties with relatives and others. Given ability, millennials will seek space and individual freedom and individual transportation just like previous generations.

Humans are essentially evolved to live in small social units of fewer than 150 individuals. A close friend turned me on to a discovery in anthropological science that proves this. It's called Dunbar's Number. Look it up. Fascinating. Explains nearly everything as to why we act the way we do socially.

[incognitoe]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Isn't the entire point being if everyone does a little bit... we can get through this???

Don't see how anyone can be fair and say it's OK to force a business to move or pack up and close it's doors.

??? Nestle does more than sell water. Plus they're doing everyone a favor by reducing plastic and BPA poison being consumed.