Plenty of rain so no hysteria in the media on the "climate change" induced drought (San Diego: live, costs)

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Is Vegas stealing too?

Oh no! It’s not SoCal. All jocking aside, the point is you want CA to spend $$$ Billions so you can have your big lawn and pool. Nevada is not my concern as a CA taxpayer. My BIL lives in AZ. No lawn or personal pool and BTW his rock and cactus garden look great. AZ does a few things right. Few being the operative word.

SoCal has been living the highlife off of the water of NorCal and the Colorado. It is not sustainable and daming every CA watershed is not the answer. Why are you so opposed to reasonable conservation? You live in a desert! Have you considered that replacing your lawn with native shrubs is way less work than having a lawn?

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by Matadora

What do you suggest happens with all the salt/brine produced?


]

Umm... sell it like most salt companies do. You do realize that much of the salt you buy on the west coast is from evaporative ponds of sea water. But then maybe you did not. Google salt ponds.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Oh no! It’s not SoCal. All jocking aside, the point is you want CA to spend $$$ Billions so you can have your big lawn and pool. Nevada is not my concern as a CA taxpayer. My BIL lives in AZ. No lawn or personal pool and BTW his rock and cactus garden look great. AZ does a few things right. Few being the operative word.

SoCal has been living the highlife off of the water of NorCal and the Colorado. It is not sustainable and daming every CA watershed is not the answer. Why are you so opposed to reasonable conservation? You live in a desert! Have you considered that replacing your lawn with native shrubs is way less work than having a lawn?

Sounds like someone is a bit jelly. It seems too that you are unable to grasp that I use fairly little water. But you want me to have a rock quarry in my front lawn since you want me to mimic Tucson in all ways.

Feel free to split off from horrible SoCal. Our tax dollars will dry up for you as your water supply increases. A win win.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Sounds like someone is a bit jelly. Feel free to split off from horrible SoCal.

I’m glad you keep responding. Jelly? Funny term. Jelly is watery. Jam has some thickness. And then is preserves. The real deal. Preserves. Yum!

Anyway, I am opposed to spending Billions so you can keep your personal pool and big lawn.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

I’m glad you keep responding. Jelly? Funny term. Jelly is watery. Jam has some thickness. And then is preserves. The real deal. Preserves. Yum!

Anyway, I am opposed to spending Billions so you can keep your personal pool and big lawn.

Billions for me to own my property huh? My property costs you billions huh?

When did I indicate a had a “lawn”? Why is my water use, which I’ve explained to you repeatedly is quite low, an issue to you? It’s the pool. It upsets you that I even have it.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Sounds like someone is a bit jelly. It seems too that you are unable to grasp that I use fairly little water. But you want me to have a rock quarry in my front lawn since you want me to mimic Tucson in all ways.

Feel free to split off from horrible SoCal. Our tax dollars will dry up for you as your water supply increases. A win win.

To respond to your revised post: is your front yard really a rock quarry? Gee I’m sorry.

The tax burden of SoCal and expenses will not be missed should the State be split. Plus we can then sell our water to you for a price. A win win!

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Billions for me to own my property huh? My property costs you billions huh?

When did I indicate a had a “lawn”? Why is my water use, which I’ve explained to you repeatedly is quite low, an issue to you? It’s the pool. It upsets you that I even have it.

Word of advice; people read all the posts in a thread. At least some do. Gads it’s like 10:30 here. Hey, sleep well and good night!

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Yes I am aware of that, but it has nothing to do with North VS South. The State Gov't permitted that and it is located in the ........ North.

That's because the voters were in the south.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

tstieber,

I expect this thoughtless and arrogant attitude from "you know who in Walnut Creek" but not from you. You are ignoring the problem.

1. Regarding oil and gas, yes we do destroy other natural habitats around our country and across the world -- it doesn't make it right, nor sustainable. And we pay a hefty price for that oil and gas. Still not right. That is why we are using solar energy and electric cars. By the end of the year I will have an electric car which will reduce my "carbon footprint" but more importantly I will be improving the air quality of where I live.

2. Isn't it only fair that you provide at least 50% of the water you use - build desalinization plants and take the water from where you live. Then we can steal the water from you, and we will see how you like it. Seriously, its the arrogance and total disregard that is most disturbing.

3. There is a bigger and much more reliable source of water in Oregon and Washington, perhaps you can take their water instead. You can tax yourself to build the infrastructure so it goes straight to your parched landscape. I wonder if the people in Oregon and Washington would feel the same way I do.

4. We in NorCal meter our water and pay a big cost for it and we really don't have to because we have enough water to sustain ourselves....oh, but we send it to you at the expense of our natural habitats and at the expense of our homes and livelihoods, but it sounds like you don't care about that.

I apologize if I came off as insensitive. I was hoping that other examples of resource sharing would help you see that water is no different than oil or any other resource. We all need it, and not everyone has it. I do think you are not understanding my point that Northern California does not, in fact, have enough local water to sustain itself without the supplemental reservoirs you dislike. You would never make it through the long hot dry season without them. I remember growing up in the late 80s and early 90s, going through terrible prolonged droughts in Northern California where we had severe water restrictions, and many people lost their lawns.

So maybe on average, Southern California has 9 months of drought per year, and Northern California has 6 months of drought per year. That still means everyone needs to conserve, and perhaps SoCal needs to conserve a little bit more, but it's not like only SoCal needs to conserve and NorCal doesn't. I'm just saying everyone in CA has the exact same responsibilities, and just because people in Northern California are somewhat closer to large state reservoirs doesn't mean all that water was meant for them, which it obviously wasn't, since that would be way too much water for the current population needs in NorCal alone.

I just don't get why anyone would say that some parts of our state shouldn't be entitled to a single drop of the water in the reservoirs built for that very purpose?

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Mr5150

Oh no! It’s not SoCal. All jocking aside, the point is you want CA to spend $$$ Billions so you can have your big lawn and pool. Nevada is not my concern as a CA taxpayer. My BIL lives in AZ. No lawn or personal pool and BTW his rock and cactus garden look great. AZ does a few things right. Few being the operative word.

SoCal has been living the highlife off of the water of NorCal and the Colorado. It is not sustainable and daming every CA watershed is not the answer. Why are you so opposed to reasonable conservation? You live in a desert! Have you considered that replacing your lawn with native shrubs is way less work than having a lawn?

Wow --- this opinion completely misrepresents the reality of water conservation in our state. You have it backwards. Southern Californians have been tearing up and replacing lawns and golf courses with drought tolerant landscaping for years while Northern California keeps planting thirsty lawns and Coast redwoods in hot inland areas, since it's "their" water to waste, and then points the finger at Southern California for being water hogs. It's laughable. We are the ones saving, and Northern Californians are the ones wasting. I would say the majority of residential landscaping in San Diego, where I now live, is drought tolerant, while in my NorCal hometown of Walnut Creek, which has hotter and drier summers, that's where people water the bejeezus out of giant lawns. And why shouldn't they, when their water rates are half of ours? NorCal water is cheap enough to motivate people to waste it. I could easily take a hundred photos of yards in just my immediate neighborhood that have extremely low water-using landscape. On top of that, roughly half the homes in my neighborhood generate electricity from solar panels on the roof, and we have a disproportionately high number of electric vehicles as well. While I do see a ton of Bay Area businesses and cities using solar panels and planting responsible landscape, I hardly see it among the residential population. That's where the problem is. Everyone preaches environmentalism, but they barely practice it. Words over action. In San Diego, we do it the other way around.

Now I will say that not all low water landscapes are environmentally appropriate, just because they save water. We see a lot of artificial turf and / or desert rock in front yards around here, and both have negative consequences for the environment. For one thing, artificial turf costs about the same over its 10-year lifespan as it would to water and maintain actual lawn, so it is not cost effective. At the same time, it literally bakes the soil underneath it, so that it sterilizes and ruins the soil forever. We lose the opportunity to provide a habitat for microorganisms and other animals such as insects and birds to thrive. Then, after 10 years, the turf ends up in landfill. Desert rock also heats up the soil and contributes to global warming, which makes our droughts worse and worse.

The key to effective drought tolerant Landscaping *throughout* the state is planting more and more regionally appropriate TREES. Trees provide shade and cool the environment around them, they clean and purify the air if the right species are selected, and their seasonal water use is much less than for most ornamental shrubs. However, ornamental shrubs with mulch can create beautiful and water-saving landscapes full of color and texture while providing a habitat for wildlife.

Southern California, outside of the actual desert, is actually not a desert, and in fact, LA and the Valley just to its north average more rainfall than you think -- roughly the same annual rainfall as Silicon Valley and the lower peninsula of the Bay Area. So we don't need to make the region look like a desert. But it does get hot, and we need to plant native trees like Oak, Sycamore, Torrey pine, and imported specis with limited water needs.

Just my two cents. Conservation is everyone's responsibility, not everyone else's. :-)