Water Conservation (wage, price, agriculture)

[songinthewind7]

Yep, a toilets got to flush good. I hate going in someplace and the toilet doesn't flush and then it gets tried again, holding the handle down.
Blah Blah Blah. Too much drama.
Older or newer, I'm happy if it flushes after one flush.

[TKO]

That's hilarious Mortimer! A love the button idea and, while I'm not into scotch so much, I do care an awful lot for a good pinot. It ranks above my love for the loo to be sure.

Perhaps I should have said I hate ones that don't...instead of love the ones that do.

[Pipeweld]

Originally Posted by chilegal

We just put in a new toilet and if holds 1.6 gal. Love it! It works great with any type of flush-if ya know what I mean..
The best part was it cost $88. at home depot.

I just want one of those tall boy models!!!

[chilegal]

Originally Posted by Pipeweld

I just want one of those tall boy models!!!

David, I was wrong.. its 1.26 gallons..

[rruff]

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

Water, like all other matter, is conserved (in the physics sense). It doesn't get destroyed if we drink it, or pour it down the drain, or let it evaporate. More will come (perhaps not enough) when it rains.

I agree... I've made the very same argument. It isn't like we are burning the water up. Like you said, when water becomes more scarse the price will go up, and how much water you use will become an economic decision. Conversation will naturally occur when the price gets too high. People will conserve in order to save money. Businesses that rely on large quantities of water may need to move elsewhere.

All of this will happen whether we conserve now or not.

[Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by highdesertmutz

Don't people believe in conserving our natural resources?

Apparently, only some. And then, many of those come up short when they're asked to explain why, beyond "so we don't run out", which is impossible, given the fact it rains somewhere, sometime.

Originally Posted by Vinegaroon

Your argument that water cannot be destroyed is overly simplistic. when it is used up, if it is not replenished in the same amount, it is not replaced. Presently New Mexico already has limited water supplies, whether that be streams, rivers, lakes or aquifers.

Water is a fleeting resource. It is used, whether people use it, rivers lose it to evaporation, or it flows downstream to Texas. If an aquifer is consumed faster than it is replenished (which seems to be the case already), then it's not a question of if it will be depleted but when. The question therefore becomes: Is it worth conserving the water now to delay the need to bring in more water later?

Originally Posted by Vinegaroon

Drought is an ever present concern. It is always possible that we will experience a very severe drought, and then water conservation will be more important than ever. If we conserve now, we will be better prepared should that scenario ever occur.

Drought is an eventual certainty, not a possibility. The question is, what will happen in a drought? People will voluntarily (and involuntarily) conserve, importation of water will increase, costs will increase. Doesn't sound much different from the current situation except in terms of scale.

Originally Posted by Vinegaroon

In addition, New Mexico has interstate water delivery obligations to Texas. Water conservation is necessary to avoid costly litigation should New Mexico fail to deliver adequate amounts of water that it is required to do by law under various interstate compacts. New Mexico has already been sued by Texas once over this, and it did not fair well.

New Mexico is, at least in part, pleased to pay for its water overuse when it pays money to Texas. When the taxpayers start noticing this big (and it's not that big yet in the grand scheme of things) red line item in their state budget, they may put pressure for it to change. The majority of the shortfall doesn't come from urban and suburban use though; it comes from farmers irrigating the desert and pumping down the water table. At present we're choosing local water for local food over agreeing on some document dating back decades if not centuries. I'm not seeing a strong argument for conservation on this account; I should use less water so my food comes from three hours away instead of six and a bare sliver of my tax dollars don't get used in Texas?

Originally Posted by Tim Rankin

And while we're at it, let's get those biomass power plants fired up too. NM has lots and lots of pinon forests to burn, and they'll eventually grow back. Well, maybe, but who cares? Other natural resources are there for the taking too! How about...we "top" off Sandia Mtn - there has to be plenty of raw material for [something] up there. And when it's all leveled off, we can sell the mountain to SunCal and they can build even more houses!!! Yayyyy!! And then, we can build a giganto solar collector extending over much of the state to generate huge amounts of energy [to build even more things!!], As an unintended benefit, it'll be nice and cool in the summertime. Kind of like an enormous sun-brella keeping us out of those harmful, yucky UV rays.

Pretty bad straw man. This thread's about water conservation. Let's talk about water conservation and not a poor analogy for it just because it makes your viewpoint easier to argue. But I do like that solar energy idea.

Originally Posted by mortimer

There's another consideration to using less water. It alters the climate.

After a trip to Phoenix, I can certainly concede this point. You could always tax water lost to evaporation based on its economic impact (which, given much of the state's switchover from swamps to energy-hogging A/C's is not zero), if you figured out an even and transparent way to do so, since toilet flushes do not equal lawn sprinklers.

I don't know if I buy the pollen argument, since juniper is my worst allergy, and that is essentially what well-watered plants displace. Likewise, a non-native-tree-filled and grass-filled yard works wonders on cooling and heating bills.

Originally Posted by mortimer

$100/month for water is nothing to us, but for many people in this world,
that's their entire income for a month.

But water doesn't cost that for them. It costs us that much because we can and will pay it for that next gallon. They can't and won't, so it's cheap for them.

I appreciate everyone's attempts to argue their points. Am still a water conservation skeptic. I think there are much more deserving areas of attention.

[mortimer]

Zoidberg makes this point:

> ... water conservation ... much more deserving areas of attention.

Good point.

It's still easy to encourage conservation without giving it much "attention."

A good start would be to remove all fixed costs from the water bills.
That also goes for our power and gas bills. It's stupid to have to pay
a bill to some entity if you have zero use.

[Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by mortimer

A good start would be to remove all fixed costs from the water bills.
That also goes for our power and gas bills. It's stupid to have to pay
a bill to some entity if you have zero use.

While I do think the cost for the first drop is unusually high, there is a high cost associated with bringing that first drop to a residence; the installation and maintenance of water mains and pipes, and the pumps used to bring that water from the aquifer/river/wherever. Also, the cost of mailing bills, etc. It wouldn't be right to make it completely free.

If there was some method to determine sewer use (a sewer meter, if you will), that might be a better basis for making the water system fair. If you use 10,000 gallons and 9,000 go back down the drain, versus 10,000/1,000, it's reasonable to expect the other 9,000 are evaporating. Then again, at least we don't have to treat that wastewater.

Are we better off, at least for the proverbial additional gallon, letting the wastewater evaporate or treating it? Treated gets returned to the watershed, but consumes energy, the production of which consumes water and loses it to evaporation.

[songinthewind7]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Zoidberg makes this point:

> ... water conservation ... much more deserving areas of attention.

Good point.

It's still easy to encourage conservation without giving it much "attention."

A good start would be to remove all fixed costs from the water bills.
That also goes for our power and gas bills. It's stupid to have to pay
a bill to some entity if you have zero use.

Agreed as far as removing fixed costs.

[Tim Rankin]

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

While I do think the cost for the first drop is unusually high, there is a high cost associated with bringing that first drop to a residence; the installation and maintenance of water mains and pipes, and the pumps used to bring that water from the aquifer/river/wherever. Also, the cost of mailing bills, etc. It wouldn't be right to make it completely free.

There is a high cost to bringing not just the first drop, but each and every drop, to a residence. Using more water means having to divert more water, which results in higher infrastructure costs. Therefore, the amount a customer is charged should be commensurate with how much they use. The incentive should be to use less, so that we can spend less.

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

If there was some method to determine sewer use (a sewer meter, if you will), that might be a better basis for making the water system fair. If you use 10,000 gallons and 9,000 go back down the drain, versus 10,000/1,000, it's reasonable to expect the other 9,000 are evaporating. Then again, at least we don't have to treat that wastewater.

Are we better off, at least for the proverbial additional gallon, letting the wastewater evaporate or treating it? Treated gets returned to the watershed, but consumes energy, the production of which consumes water and loses it to evaporation.

One part you're leaving out is that if water is put back into the system via sewers & treatment plants [instead of evaporation], the resource can be re-used by a downstream user. That means one less water diversion project downstream [reducing infrastructure costs].

Zoidberg, why the arguments against conserving water? Are you just having fun with us? Or, are you just trying to ease your guilty conscience over owning a pool...