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.
California is in a water crisis largely because the price of water cannot increase enough to influence consumption behaviour. This same low cost of water makes a pipeline uneconomic.
In a drought declared to be “historic,” in Irvine, the epicenter of rain-deprived Southern California, people pay $1.55 per hundred cubic feet of water, a little more than 748 gallons. In other words, $0.002—two-tenths of a cent—per gallon.
Yes, the price of water in this community has increased since last summer—it is up 7 cents from $1.48 per hundred cubic feet. Other California residents might pay three and four times this —but that’s still less than a penny a gallon.
At less than a penny a gallon, it does not make much economic sense to conserve water.
Consider dual-flush toilet mechanisms (which use half the water for liquid-waste flushes than solid-waste) can be installed in existing toilets and cost $20 to $40 apiece—a median cost of $90 for three mechanisms for a typical 3 bathroom home, which can be recouped over time with lower water bills.
The water savings is potentially 6,205 gallons a year, assuming five “half-flushes” (which cut water use in half) per person a day for a 2 person household. However, at $0.002 a gallon of water saved, the half-flushes would lower a water bill by $12.41 a year. It would take more than seven years to recover mechanisms’ cost. For a 4 person household, the payback is much shorter - but in any case less than going to the movies & buying popcorn.
To save even more water, imagine installing 3 brand new very water-stingy toilets. New, water-saving toilets use 1.28 gallons per flush instead of the 3.5 gallons that the installed base of toilets in Southern California typically use. Three high-quality (but not top-of-the-line) water-saving toilets cost $2,254 installed. A family of 2 could save 8,103 gallons of water a year, but only $16.21 on the annual water bill. It would take more than 138 years to recover the cost of the new toilets, not including interest costs.
By contrast, if tap water were raised to the price of water sold by the gallon at the local Costco—six one-gallon bottles for $3.89 a pack—the price of our water would be 65 cents a gallon. The cost of the three toilets could be recovered through lower water bills in a little more than five months.
Clearly, going from less than a penny a gallon to 65 cents a gallon is not feasible. But true conservation will not occur otherwise.
I am not sure where you live or where you get your figures from, but I can tell you my water bill runs north of $250 @ month in the summer months and over half of that in the winter. We have no grass and only water our trees. We have been in conservation mode for over a decade and the situation gets continually worse.
Now for a few inconvenient facts. 80% of California's water goes for agriculture. Another fact is that California feeds the rest of the nation.
This issue is not about how long of a shower people take, it is about what does it take to grow the nations food supply. I hear idiots complaining about sharing water, how about if the price of your produce triples to pay for the desalinization you think we should build. Perhaps you would like to pay $8.00 for that head of lettuce and return to the days when only the wealthy could afford to eat citrus fruit. That bottle of California wine you enjoy at such cheap prices will also be at thing of the past without cheap water.
Even if every Californian saved 25% of the water they currently use which is totally unrealistic given they have been in conservation mode for decades, it would still only amount to 5% of California's total water use.
But yea, you guys are right, screw treating water as a precious resource and managing it effectively. Let the people under water from floods suffer with their fate, and let the nations most productive farmland dry up and drive the cost of food through the roof because we are a bunch of ignorant NIMBYS who do not know how to do a damn thing except point fingers at other people and wallow in our own "exceptionalism".
"But yea, you guys are right, screw treating water as a precious resource and managing it effectively. Let the people under water from floods suffer with their fate, and let the nations most productive farmland dry up and drive the cost of food through the roof because we are a bunch of ignorant NIMBYS who do not know how to do a damn thing except point fingers at other people and wallow in our own "exceptionalism"." Some people just don't think. Because something isn't done presently, they cannot imagine it can be done.
It's silly to waste water period. If it takes water to make a place liveable, water that would otherwise be wasted could be of good use and the desert golfers would probably not mind the cost so much.
Plus the industry that would develop from using flood water would create jobs. WIN WIN
Water is not a renewable resource. Take water from one area and transport it far away and you will remove the water from that first area. It will not return so over time, the infrastructure built would be useless. There would be no more water to move.
Bottom line is, you can't use more than the environment can restore without huge consequences - consequences the southwest are realizing today.
I am sure there is a way to manage water correctly. We go from feast to famine with water. I think if we can launch rockets into space WHY cannot we learn to manage water correctly? Why is water being sold in plastic bottles think of all the resources needed to bottle water.
Water is not a renewable resource. Take water from one area and transport it far away and you will remove the water from that first area. It will not return so over time, the infrastructure built would be useless. There would be no more water to move.
Bottom line is, you can't use more than the environment can restore without huge consequences - consequences the southwest are realizing today.
Water is not a renewable resource? Can't hand me that one. I am from Portland Oregon. Oh and I truly doubt flood victims want to restore the 30 plus feet of flood water.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,498 posts, read 12,496,511 times
Reputation: 10450
Texas and Oklahoma had also been in drought conditions for the past 5 years. Rains like the two states are currently experiencing are extremely rare. Sure those states may see a short lived toad-floater a time or two during any given year, but since the ground is usually hard because of the droughts the rainfall runs off, into creeks, rivers and lakes, instead of sinking in.
Why spend hundreds of billions on a pipeline that most often would only carry dust? Instead, California should start spending a few million on desalination plants.
I watch a report on California draught. 30 per state in extreme draught December 2014. Now 43%. Then summer there predicted to be much above normal temperatures. Not looking good at all. Central Texas has under ground aquafier system and eastern Texas has huge lakes and containment systems filled by pump flood control.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,498 posts, read 12,496,511 times
Reputation: 10450
Quote:
Originally Posted by portlandphi
Rakin: The reason they call it flood water is because there is no place to hold and store the water during heavy rains.
And certainly that cannot be changed.
And about the wildlife/wetlands, A scientifically developed plan to balance what goes where would be a part of such a plan, no doubt.
Wrong, as far as no place to hold and store water during heavy rains.
An Oklahoma lake--what it should look like with no drought, or, after a heavy spring storm (this could be a picture of any lake in OK or TX)..
The same lake in late summer or fall (once again, it could be a picture of any lake in TX or OK)..
The OP talked about Texas and Oklahoma, both of which have been going through a drought for a number of years, and, even with the current totally out of character heavy storms the two states are now going through, the drought is expected to continue. Right now this lake looks like the top picture, by late summer or fall it will once again look like the bottom picture. Spring is when the two states normally see enough rain to replenish their lakes, rivers, streams, etc., the rest of the year it's usually as dry as a pop corn fart.
And you expect some one (who exactly?) to fork out billions of dollars to run a pipe, and to push any water, from TX/OK to CA for a possible once a year, twice a year if they are extremely lucky, dribble of excess water?
It appears that CA has finally woken up and are working on creating desalination plants, so far they have 17 in the planning/building stages. They even have one that they had finished building in 1992, to serve Santa Barbara, that they had never, ever even used--it's just been sitting there-collecting dust.
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.
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.
