U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 04-23-2018, 05:32 PM
 
12,810 posts, read 11,364,487 times
Reputation: 23172

Advertisements

Northern CA seems to be doing okay (not great but okay) but from all reports, southern California is still considered drought central. Even though we're not living under drought conditions, we're still asked to conserve water and our schedule hasn't changed. It's the new normal for us here in northern CA.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2018, 08:02 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 5,707,814 times
Reputation: 2629
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstieber View Post
I still have to disagree with you on water Imports. Desalination water is extremely expensive to produce and is not economically sustainable except as part of a larger group of Diversified water sources. It's much cheaper to import water 600 miles from Lake Oroville than it is to produce it locally. Of course there is some price to pay locally in the area near the reservoirs, but in my opinion, the benefits of allowing us to plant lots of trees as the population grows in our state, along with some natural benefits to the local ecology where reservoirs create new watersheds for mammals and birds, outweighs the detriments. So we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

But the other thing you haven't yet answered, and maybe I haven't asked clearly, is why single out Southern California? I understand that Sacramento has the geographical benefits of a river, but with today's population size, that alone is not enough without reservoirs either. And what about the Bay Area? How could a dry place like Silicon Valley survive without water Imports? I think to be fair and consistent, your argument has to apply to reservoirs and water importation as a matter of principle and across the board. Either you oppose those things for everyone, or you don't. It doesn't make sense to say it's okay for Northern Californians to import water from reservoirs 200 miles away, but it's not okay for Southern Californians to import it from 600 miles away. Do you understand why I'm challenging that? Let's say that San Diego did stop importing a single drop of water and build tons more expensive desalination plants to provide all of its own water supply. Meanwhile, the Bay Area still Imports all its water from distant sources. Is that not hypocrisy? You don't want to fall into the trap of telling people to do as you say, not as you do. That's been my point the entire time. It's totally valid to have different ideological perspectives, but ideology doesn't apply to some people and not to others. What are your thoughts on that?
To someone who lives in the flood zone of one of the many dams and reservoirs your comments are extremely insensitive and downright arrogant(perhaps you don't see it as arrogance) "There is SOME price to pay locally..." Really, yes there is a HUGE price to pay in peoples LIVES and PROPERTY. Why do you completely ignore the issue of dam failure? Why do ignore and devalue the loss of natural habitat where it naturally exists. So you will destroy an area that is naturally beautiful so you can plant trees where they don't normally grow.

You ignore the fact that we have turned the San Joaquin Valley into a desert. We have destroyed the equivalent of Yosemite Valley(Hetch Hetchy). We have turned the once mighty and beautiful San Joaquin River into a river that regularly drys up when it never did before. We have destroyed California's once abundant Salmon population.

You talk about diversity in water sources, where is the diversity when SoCal provides Zero percent of the water needs of the Bay Area, NorCal and Sacramento. SoCal has only one 1 desalinization plant that supports only one small city. Build more desalinization plants and make a real contribution to Californias water needs.

So you will sacrifice hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of natural habitat so you can "save a few dollars". What is the difference between the Bay Area and LA/SD regarding water usage, 15 million people. It's time the Southland produces freshwater of its own - build desalination plants.

I'll tell you why it's not hypocrisy: NorCal lives within its means. It provides more than it takes. SoCal takes way more than it contributes. What is SoCal sacrificing, nothing -- And I'm not talking about dollars. I'm taking about things that cannot be replaced like people lives, property, and delicate natural habitats that when destroyed will be lost forever.

NorCal has already provided way more than its fair share and has received nothing in return. You have not addressed the idea of taking water from the PNW. You want some serious diversity, than build an aqueduct connecting Oregon's water sources with SoCal, now that will be real diversity.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2018, 02:11 AM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,511 posts, read 5,451,214 times
Reputation: 2246
tstieber:

The groundwater is about 25 to 30 feet below the surface in Downtown Sacramento. That is close enough to the surface to support a lot of trees, native and non-native, without irrigation.

Groundwater Elevation Contour Maps | SGA

Desalinating water is only a little more expensive than expanding reservior capacity.

Cost Comparison of Water Projects

When it comes to reservoirs and environmental issues, your post is a first I've seen stating it is a benefit. When a reservoir is built everything behind the dam is submerged. Those canyons have micro-climates that support flora and fauna that are only adapted to those environments. There is also the issue of California is only going to have a given amount of water. Building dams and aqueducts doesn't make more water. In fact, we have very few sites left to build good reservoirs. Many people seem to think the solution is to build dams where there isn't one already. Simply building a dam across a river doesn't make it an economical solution. A given watershed may not produce the amount of water to make the construction costs economical, and building another dam upstream or downstream of existing dams may not produce an additional water yield that makes the construction costs economical.


If Southern California wants a stable and guaranteed water supply, desalination plants are the way to go. The cost will go down as more are built, and many more will be built in the future. California isn't the only place that is running out of water. Texas has the problem too. Even Florida is running out of water.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2018, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Sylmar, a part of Los Angeles
5,194 posts, read 3,255,227 times
Reputation: 11301
Along the Hollywood freeway at Roscoe there is a area where the water is suppose to be stored and soak into the ground. I go by there all the time and have never seen any water there.
But now there digging it al out to make a big pond and I understand they will divert water from our cement waterways into it.
1st thing I've ever seen LA do right.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2018, 09:29 AM
 
2,874 posts, read 4,127,876 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC6ZLV View Post
tstieber:

The groundwater is about 25 to 30 feet below the surface in Downtown Sacramento. That is close enough to the surface to support a lot of trees, native and non-native, without irrigation.

Groundwater Elevation Contour Maps | SGA

Desalinating water is only a little more expensive than expanding reservior capacity.

Cost Comparison of Water Projects

When it comes to reservoirs and environmental issues, your post is a first I've seen stating it is a benefit. When a reservoir is built everything behind the dam is submerged. Those canyons have micro-climates that support flora and fauna that are only adapted to those environments. There is also the issue of California is only going to have a given amount of water. Building dams and aqueducts doesn't make more water. In fact, we have very few sites left to build good reservoirs. Many people seem to think the solution is to build dams where there isn't one already. Simply building a dam across a river doesn't make it an economical solution. A given watershed may not produce the amount of water to make the construction costs economical, and building another dam upstream or downstream of existing dams may not produce an additional water yield that makes the construction costs economical.


If Southern California wants a stable and guaranteed water supply, desalination plants are the way to go. The cost will go down as more are built, and many more will be built in the future. California isn't the only place that is running out of water. Texas has the problem too. Even Florida is running out of water.
Thank you for a well reasoned post! I just read an article in voice of San Diego, a nonprofit website, that the desalination water is more than twice the cost to the Water District compared to Reservoir water, which is pretty substantial.

I actually think that recycled water would be the number one way to radically alter the infrastructure in the entire state. Recycled water could irrigate pretty much all outdoor Landscaping and Parks, which is where the vast majority of watering needs are. And we could do that for pennies on the dollar compared to any of our other limited water sources. San Diego has done some test runs in some areas with great success, but as of yet, I haven't heard of any plans for a larger-scale rollout. I actually think we don't need more potable water at the moment, we just need to stop using potable water for landscaping, but we are a long way from that.

When I was saying that reservoirs provide some benefits, I'm talking about birds, waterfowl, other plants, fish, all those things that do get established there. Of course it destroys what was once there, but it's not like we are paving something over with cement. Compared to Miles and Miles of tract housing or shopping malls ruining the natural landscape, for example, a reservoir is still a better place for wildlife. Compare, for example, Folsom Lake to the city of Folsom and how each treads on the environment. Even if reservoirs are not ideal, the discussion on California's water needs really has to include the direction of Urban Development to accommodate population growth, because not only does that development destroy the local environment on a much larger scale than a reservoir diminishes it, but also, our current development styles demand high water use. We will probably see quite a change in how new housing is built so that more people will live in denser multifamily communities where they share parks and amenities instead of watering their own yards. Otherwise, we will all run out of water.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2018, 10:11 AM
 
2,874 posts, read 4,127,876 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimérique View Post
To someone who lives in the flood zone of one of the many dams and reservoirs your comments are extremely insensitive and downright arrogant(perhaps you don't see it as arrogance) "There is SOME price to pay locally..." Really, yes there is a HUGE price to pay in peoples LIVES and PROPERTY. Why do you completely ignore the issue of dam failure? Why do ignore and devalue the loss of natural habitat where it naturally exists. So you will destroy an area that is naturally beautiful so you can plant trees where they don't normally grow.

You ignore the fact that we have turned the San Joaquin Valley into a desert. We have destroyed the equivalent of Yosemite Valley(Hetch Hetchy). We have turned the once mighty and beautiful San Joaquin River into a river that regularly drys up when it never did before. We have destroyed California's once abundant Salmon population.

You talk about diversity in water sources, where is the diversity when SoCal provides Zero percent of the water needs of the Bay Area, NorCal and Sacramento. SoCal has only one 1 desalinization plant that supports only one small city. Build more desalinization plants and make a real contribution to Californias water needs.

So you will sacrifice hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of natural habitat so you can "save a few dollars". What is the difference between the Bay Area and LA/SD regarding water usage, 15 million people. It's time the Southland produces freshwater of its own - build desalination plants.

I'll tell you why it's not hypocrisy: NorCal lives within its means. It provides more than it takes. SoCal takes way more than it contributes. What is SoCal sacrificing, nothing -- And I'm not talking about dollars. I'm taking about things that cannot be replaced like people lives, property, and delicate natural habitats that when destroyed will be lost forever.

NorCal has already provided way more than its fair share and has received nothing in return. You have not addressed the idea of taking water from the PNW. You want some serious diversity, than build an aqueduct connecting Oregon's water sources with SoCal, now that will be real diversity.
You just keep restating the same thing without answering the follow up questions I've asked numerous times and would love to hear your opinion on.

But to summarize for a third time my main disagreements with you:

1) The large reservoirs in our state were built for all of California, not just for Northern California. Therefore, the notion that all that water 'belongs' only to Northern California is a fallacy. California is one state, and the water is intended for the entire state.

2) Without the reservoirs that you detest, it is fantasy to believe that Northern California lives within its means. Evapotranspiration is higher than the rainfall that replaces it . Sure, in the 1800's, people made do with bathing every couple weeks , there were no grassy Parks or exterior Landscaping. We had dirt or gravel roads. The population was small. You could make do with the water you had, and you could dig Wells, something that our current population size could not support. With today's population and urbanization, and with a summer dry season, rainfall and groundwater do not suffice to support Northern California's population. We all rely on supplemental water, including you.

And here's the only question I will ask you one more time. Do you honestly see any ethical or ideological difference between the Bay Area bringing in water from 200 miles away vs San Diego bringing it in from 600 miles away or La bringing it in from 450 miles away? Does being a few hundred miles closer somehow entitle Northern California to all that Reservoir water and make all the reservoirs okay again? I just don't understand how you can be opposed to reservoirs on principle on the one hand, and on the other hand argue that it's okay for millions of people in the Bay Area to use Reservoir water because the reservoirs are technically located in Northern California. I would love to know how you reconcile those two positions.

It concerns me when some Northern Californians have a holier than thou opinion about water responsibility and dismiss it as a Southern California problem, because that attitude of Us Versus Them is in my opinion a huge disincentive for Northern Californians to conserve, because they feel entitled to the entire state's water all to themselves. And it passes the buck.

The long and short is, reservoirs were built some time ago, they were built with the water needs of the entire state in mind, and the entire State relies on them now. They are here to stay, because we can't live without them. But our population will continue to grow, and at some point, they won't suffice anymore. So we obviously have to look towards the future, and I agree that desalination plants along the southern California coast, as well as the Central Coast, should be part of that mix. So should recycling. So should conservation. So should responsible Housing Development. It's all those things, not just Southern California building desalination plants and calling it a day. We have to look much more comprehensively, collectively, and towards the future.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2018, 08:11 PM
 
5,365 posts, read 5,707,814 times
Reputation: 2629
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstieber View Post

(When I use the pronoun, "you", don't take it personal. I don't necessarily mean you)

1) The large reservoirs in our state were built for all of California, not just for Northern California. Therefore, the notion that all that water 'belongs' only to Northern California is a fallacy. California is one state, and the water is intended for the entire state.

2) Without the reservoirs that you detest, it is fantasy to believe that Northern California lives within its means. Evapotranspiration is higher than the rainfall that replaces it . Sure, in the 1800's, people made do with bathing every couple weeks , there were no grassy Parks or exterior Landscaping. We had dirt or gravel roads. The population was small. You could make do with the water you had, and you could dig Wells, something that our current population size could not support. With today's population and urbanization, and with a summer dry season, rainfall and groundwater do not suffice to support Northern California's population. We all rely on supplemental water, including you.

And here's the only question I will ask you one more time. Do you honestly see any ethical or ideological difference between the Bay Area bringing in water from 200 miles away vs San Diego bringing it in from 600 miles away or La bringing it in from 450 miles away? Does being a few hundred miles closer somehow entitle Northern California to all that Reservoir water and make all the reservoirs okay again? I just don't understand how you can be opposed to reservoirs on principle on the one hand, and on the other hand argue that it's okay for millions of people in the Bay Area to use Reservoir water because the reservoirs are technically located in Northern California. I would love to know how you reconcile those two positions.

It concerns me when some Northern Californians have a holier than thou opinion about water responsibility and dismiss it as a Southern California problem, because that attitude of Us Versus Them is in my opinion a huge disincentive for Northern Californians to conserve, because they feel entitled to the entire state's water all to themselves. And it passes the buck.

The long and short is, reservoirs were built some time ago, they were built with the water needs of the entire state in mind, and the entire State relies on them now. They are here to stay, because we can't live without them. But our population will continue to grow, and at some point, they won't suffice anymore. So we obviously have to look towards the future, and I agree that desalination plants along the southern California coast, as well as the Central Coast, should be part of that mix. So should recycling. So should conservation. So should responsible Housing Development. It's all those things, not just Southern California building desalination plants and calling it a day. We have to look much more comprehensively, collectively, and towards the future.
Tstieber,

Do you really think that we are "passing the buck" when we sacrifice our natural habitats and put ourselves at risk to dam failure so we can give you water.

Trust me Northern Californian DO NOT have holier than now attitudes about water, rather we are trying to save what little we have. We live within our means and share a huge amount with Southern California. Southern California does not live within its means; it takes water from everywhere and provides none to other areas. It doesn't care that taking water from NorCal will destroy much of it.

Funny, you keep repeating yourself over and over without answering my questions.

1. Why do you not care that your advocation of building more dams and reservoirs endangers peoples lives and property? Why do you ignore the fact that failure of one of those dams would have be a major disaster killing thousands of people, and destroying billions of dollars of property?

2. Why are you advocating to build more dams and reservoirs when it destroys hundreds and hundreds of square miles of natural habitat?

3. When is Socal going to provide its own water?

4. Why doesn't SoCal provide water to NorCal isn't it only fair you share?

5. Do you even care that the San Joaquin Valley has been destroyed because other Californias have sucked the ground water dry when it once was abundant. The same actions have destroyed the San Joaquin River, does that matter to you?

6. Do you even care that we destroyed the Owens River Valley, and the Hetch Tetchy Valley(the equivalent of Yosemite Valley)? That we have destroyed the Salmon population in NorCal?

7. Nobody is seriously advocating removing our current dams and reservoirs. What do you keep bringing that up? I have never suggested that.

8. Isn't it only fair that SoCal build several more desalinization plants as we already are doing all those other things you mentioned like recycling, conversation, and using dams and reservoirs.

9. The Sacramento River feeds all of California because a huge artificial concrete monstrosity was built. It's called the California Aqueduct and it sends a lot of water south.

10. Why don't you advocate taking water from Oregon?

11. When are you going to build more desalinization plants?

12. When and where will the next desalinization plant be built off the California Coast?

13. The Sacramento Valley is about to sacrifice even more precious habitat by flooding land and building a new reservoir so we can send you more water, and suck out more ground water, how are you contributing to our water needs?

Last edited by Chimérique; 04-25-2018 at 08:21 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2018, 10:52 PM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,511 posts, read 5,451,214 times
Reputation: 2246
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstieber View Post

When I was saying that reservoirs provide some benefits, I'm talking about birds, waterfowl, other plants, fish, all those things that do get established there. Of course it destroys what was once there, but it's not like we are paving something over with cement. Compared to Miles and Miles of tract housing or shopping malls ruining the natural landscape, for example, a reservoir is still a better place for wildlife. Compare, for example, Folsom Lake to the city of Folsom and how each treads on the environment. Even if reservoirs are not ideal, the discussion on California's water needs really has to include the direction of Urban Development to accommodate population growth, because not only does that development destroy the local environment on a much larger scale than a reservoir diminishes it, but also, our current development styles demand high water use. We will probably see quite a change in how new housing is built so that more people will live in denser multifamily communities where they share parks and amenities instead of watering their own yards. Otherwise, we will all run out of water.
Reservoirs remove habitat for flora. Most of our native waterfowl need marshy wetlands. Not open water.

Our high water use has more to do with landscaping choices than anything else. Particularly lawns.

It isn't the water going down to Southern California that bothers people up here so much. It is the attitude of many people down south who think that people in Northern California should be paying as much, or have the same restrictions on usage as those people who live in the steppe climates in Southern California.

If there were a water deficit in Northern California due to evaporation, as you suggest, then there wouldn't be any water available to export out of Northern California. Some locales in Northern California either don't have local water sources to support their local populations, such as much of the Bay Area, or they are in a rain shadow where precipitation is a bit low. However, if you were to take the northern California north of about 38° you would find that most places have enough local water resources to support their populations.

Last edited by KC6ZLV; 04-25-2018 at 11:07 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2018, 09:30 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
16,122 posts, read 26,919,724 times
Reputation: 9757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimérique View Post
Tstieber,

Do you really think that we are "passing the buck" when we sacrifice our natural habitats and put ourselves at risk to dam failure so we can give you water.

Trust me Northern Californian DO NOT have holier than now attitudes about water, rather we are trying to save what little we have. We live within our means and share a huge amount with Southern California. Southern California does not live within its means; it takes water from everywhere and provides none to other areas. It doesn't care that taking water from NorCal will destroy much of it.

Funny, you keep repeating yourself over and over without answering my questions.

1. Why do you not care that your advocation of building more dams and reservoirs endangers peoples lives and property? Why do you ignore the fact that failure of one of those dams would have be a major disaster killing thousands of people, and destroying billions of dollars of property?

2. Why are you advocating to build more dams and reservoirs when it destroys hundreds and hundreds of square miles of natural habitat?

3. When is Socal going to provide its own water?

4. Why doesn't SoCal provide water to NorCal isn't it only fair you share?

5. Do you even care that the San Joaquin Valley has been destroyed because other Californias have sucked the ground water dry when it once was abundant. The same actions have destroyed the San Joaquin River, does that matter to you?

6. Do you even care that we destroyed the Owens River Valley, and the Hetch Tetchy Valley(the equivalent of Yosemite Valley)? That we have destroyed the Salmon population in NorCal?

7. Nobody is seriously advocating removing our current dams and reservoirs. What do you keep bringing that up? I have never suggested that.

8. Isn't it only fair that SoCal build several more desalinization plants as we already are doing all those other things you mentioned like recycling, conversation, and using dams and reservoirs.

9. The Sacramento River feeds all of California because a huge artificial concrete monstrosity was built. It's called the California Aqueduct and it sends a lot of water south.

10. Why don't you advocate taking water from Oregon?

11. When are you going to build more desalinization plants?

12. When and where will the next desalinization plant be built off the California Coast?

13. The Sacramento Valley is about to sacrifice even more precious habitat by flooding land and building a new reservoir so we can send you more water, and suck out more ground water, how are you contributing to our water needs?
The rest of this post pretty much exemplifies that "holier than thou" attitude.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2018, 07:29 AM
 
2,874 posts, read 4,127,876 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimérique View Post
Tstieber,

Do you really think that we are "passing the buck" when we sacrifice our natural habitats and put ourselves at risk to dam failure so we can give you water.

Trust me Northern Californian DO NOT have holier than now attitudes about water, rather we are trying to save what little we have. We live within our means and share a huge amount with Southern California. Southern California does not live within its means; it takes water from everywhere and provides none to other areas. It doesn't care that taking water from NorCal will destroy much of it.

Funny, you keep repeating yourself over and over without answering my questions.

1. Why do you not care that your advocation of building more dams and reservoirs endangers peoples lives and property? Why do you ignore the fact that failure of one of those dams would have be a major disaster killing thousands of people, and destroying billions of dollars of property?

2. Why are you advocating to build more dams and reservoirs when it destroys hundreds and hundreds of square miles of natural habitat?

3. When is Socal going to provide its own water?

4. Why doesn't SoCal provide water to NorCal isn't it only fair you share?

5. Do you even care that the San Joaquin Valley has been destroyed because other Californias have sucked the ground water dry when it once was abundant. The same actions have destroyed the San Joaquin River, does that matter to you?

6. Do you even care that we destroyed the Owens River Valley, and the Hetch Tetchy Valley(the equivalent of Yosemite Valley)? That we have destroyed the Salmon population in NorCal?

7. Nobody is seriously advocating removing our current dams and reservoirs. What do you keep bringing that up? I have never suggested that.

8. Isn't it only fair that SoCal build several more desalinization plants as we already are doing all those other things you mentioned like recycling, conversation, and using dams and reservoirs.

9. The Sacramento River feeds all of California because a huge artificial concrete monstrosity was built. It's called the California Aqueduct and it sends a lot of water south.

10. Why don't you advocate taking water from Oregon?

11. When are you going to build more desalinization plants?

12. When and where will the next desalinization plant be built off the California Coast?

13. The Sacramento Valley is about to sacrifice even more precious habitat by flooding land and building a new reservoir so we can send you more water, and suck out more ground water, how are you contributing to our water needs?
I'll happily answer each of those questions after you answer mine, since I asked first. Go! :-)

Last edited by tstieber; 04-27-2018 at 07:49 AM..
Rate this post positively 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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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