Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [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 02-18-2014, 11:19 AM
 
1,321 posts, read 2,638,937 times
Reputation: 808

Advertisements

It's a bad drought and all, and I'm glad people are taking it seriously, but it's a bummer to think that people are literally questioning a life change based on moving. No one is talking about *literally* running out of water, except for a few tiny communities that are dependent on single streams, etc.

Many in California have grown accustomed to basically as much water as they can use. Sacramento has very rarely had restrictions--we're right next to two huge rivers and have high level water rights to take a lot of it. There hasn't been a huge push until recently to remove lawns, restrict front lawns in new developments, require ultra low flow fixtures (I think building code standards in California are fairly aggressive, but nothing envelope pushing). Hence, you still hear about people watering 3 times a week (or whatever). That will slowly change, but, like I said, not having enough water is new for a lot of people in the area.

Desalination will probably come to pass, but as wburg said, it's a last ditch. It's still basically the most expensive way to get water and only makes sense when it's the *only* way to get water. When they first started planning the Carlsbad plant, they were *hoping* the operating costs will lower enough to make it pencil out. It's not an unequivocal win. By the way, there actually are a huge number of environmental concerns associated with desal. Besides being energy intensive, the briny effluent can cause havoc with local ecosystems. You may not care about knocking out a couple fishies, but the fishing and tourism industries get hurt by that as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2014, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Sacramento, Placerville
2,511 posts, read 6,266,863 times
Reputation: 2259
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryuns View Post
It's a bad drought and all, and I'm glad people are taking it seriously, but it's a bummer to think that people are literally questioning a life change based on moving. No one is talking about *literally* running out of water, except for a few tiny communities that are dependent on single streams, etc.
Only tiny communities like Folsom, Rocklin and Roseville that get a large share their water from Folsom Lake. They have been talking about the feasibility of placing pumps on a floating barge so water can be pumped into the intakes that supply water to these cities, if the water level drops below those intakes. The water flow into the American River has been reduced in an effort to keep enough water in the lake to prevent this from happening. However, the City of Sacramento has a water intake on the American River and the low water levels has given the City some concern over the possibility of water levels dropping below the intakes at the pumping station on the American River.

People are underestimating the severity of this drought due to the, "it can never happen," mentality, and most people just don't understand the physical and environmental geography of California. In the case of the regional water supply in the Sacramento region, we have water districts in the Bay Area competing for the same water (which is why water meters are now mandatory in Sacramento), along with the environment concerns. Throw in statewide issues and you now have more environmental issues to deal with, such as saline water moving into the Delta and agriculture. As things stand now many farmers aren't going to plant row crops, so expect the price of produce to go up.


Desalination is expensive, but entirely within reason. And, it appears as if there isn't going to much of a choice other than building desalination plants if the population growth in California continues at the rate is has. Of course, one of the other problems is water is subsidized for many residents in the state. I not entirely against this because the subsidies has had a good return where agriculture is concerned, but I do have a problem with subsidizing the water for someone who wants to live in an area with little local water and maintain their swimming pools with cheap water.

And of course, the root of the problem is there are too many people for the available resources, and this problem isn't limited to California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2014, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Folsom
5,128 posts, read 9,788,131 times
Reputation: 3735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimérique View Post
Who cares about the San Joaquin Valley, I do, more than any Bay Arean or Southern Californian, that's for sure.

Diversifing the SJV does not mean building more suburban housing, or increasing the population; it means providing a better quality of life: providing more high paying jobs, decreasing the damage agri-business does to the air quality and water quality; reducing double digit unemployment and decreasing the exploitation of illegal immigrants, and saving water.
I do agree with you somewhat, and I'd be curious on how you'd propose doing these things.

Most people who live there are very wary of those who walk in with "big" plans on how to fix their valley. It's going to take money, and so far, those who have invested have not been able to significantly impact these things. Preferrably, it should be local money from trusted sources. It will also take vision, and buy in from the local leaders, and very conservative populace, and it will take someone who is actually invested in Kern County to Stanislaus/San Joaquin County (vs outsiders).

The other thing is the huge numbers of non-english speaking illegals that work those farms, and other businesses. And the large number of welfare recipients? After all, much of the agri-business is seasonal. How do you propose bringing this group up to speed? (not just you personally, but to anyone else with these type of ideas)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 12:00 AM
 
Location: Kirkland, WA Formerly Clovis, CA
462 posts, read 738,667 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligirlz View Post
I do agree with you somewhat, and I'd be curious on how you'd propose doing these things.

Most people who live there are very wary of those who walk in with "big" plans on how to fix their valley. It's going to take money, and so far, those who have invested have not been able to significantly impact these things. Preferrably, it should be local money from trusted sources. It will also take vision, and buy in from the local leaders, and very conservative populace, and it will take someone who is actually invested in Kern County to Stanislaus/San Joaquin County (vs outsiders).

The other thing is the huge numbers of non-english speaking illegals that work those farms, and other businesses. And the large number of welfare recipients? After all, much of the agri-business is seasonal. How do you propose bringing this group up to speed? (not just you personally, but to anyone else with these type of ideas)
The existing business interests don't want to give up their dominance in the valley economy by having other industries come in and challenge it. Unfortunately, I dont think there can be much done about it, whenever I hear about some large company proposing to put either a plant or corporate office in the Fresno area to bring jobs to the region, it ends up not happening. The only way this will change is if people become involved in the process and seek to lure different types of businesses to the valley other than retail and fast food joints and with the area ranking in the bottom of the nation in terms of educational achievement, it doesn't look very encouraging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:23 AM
 
1,321 posts, read 2,638,937 times
Reputation: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC6ZLV View Post
Only tiny communities like Folsom, Rocklin and Roseville that get a large share their water from Folsom Lake. They have been talking about the feasibility of placing pumps on a floating barge so water can be pumped into the intakes that supply water to these cities, if the water level drops below those intakes. The water flow into the American River has been reduced in an effort to keep enough water in the lake to prevent this from happening. However, the City of Sacramento has a water intake on the American River and the low water levels has given the City some concern over the possibility of water levels dropping below the intakes at the pumping station on the American River.

People are underestimating the severity of this drought due to the, "it can never happen," mentality, and most people just don't understand the physical and environmental geography of California. In the case of the regional water supply in the Sacramento region, we have water districts in the Bay Area competing for the same water (which is why water meters are now mandatory in Sacramento), along with the environment concerns. Throw in statewide issues and you now have more environmental issues to deal with, such as saline water moving into the Delta and agriculture. As things stand now many farmers aren't going to plant row crops, so expect the price of produce to go up.


Desalination is expensive, but entirely within reason. And, it appears as if there isn't going to much of a choice other than building desalination plants if the population growth in California continues at the rate is has. Of course, one of the other problems is water is subsidized for many residents in the state. I not entirely against this because the subsidies has had a good return where agriculture is concerned, but I do have a problem with subsidizing the water for someone who wants to live in an area with little local water and maintain their swimming pools with cheap water.

And of course, the root of the problem is there are too many people for the available resources, and this problem isn't limited to California.
That's a fair assessment and I didn't mean to underestimate the gravity of the situation. We're not quite there yet with Folsom Lake, but it's a possibility. From my understanding, one of the current issues is that Sac's intake on the Sac River is down for maintenance, so the American River intake is picking up all the slack. When the Sac River one is back online, I wonder if they can reduce flow in the American further?

The issue of fair pricing of water is a big deal. It's hugely complicated, but getting everyone on metered water and getting the prices closer to the true cost of delivering water would go a long way. People can trim their water use pretty severely if they need to.

And yes, I agree with desal probably being inevitable, but it's hyperbole for others to holler about how silly it is that it hasn't happened so far. It's getting cheaper, but it's still really expensive, and there are a lot of lower hanging fruits in terms of conservation that could be explored first. Of course, the intermittent nature of droughts makes those kinds of investments incredibly difficult. We're all rooting for the end of the drought, but another few El Nino years and the investors for the desal plant may have trouble getting paid if no one needs their water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Kirkland, WA Formerly Clovis, CA
462 posts, read 738,667 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryuns View Post
We're all rooting for the end of the drought, but another few El Nino years and the investors for the desal plant may have trouble getting paid if no one needs their water.
Perhaps when the water isnt needed as much from the desal plants it can be used to recharge ground water and surface reservoirs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2014, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Folsom
5,128 posts, read 9,788,131 times
Reputation: 3735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson502 View Post
The existing business interests don't want to give up their dominance in the valley economy by having other industries come in and challenge it. Unfortunately, I dont think there can be much done about it, whenever I hear about some large company proposing to put either a plant or corporate office in the Fresno area to bring jobs to the region, it ends up not happening. The only way this will change is if people become involved in the process and seek to lure different types of businesses to the valley other than retail and fast food joints and with the area ranking in the bottom of the nation in terms of educational achievement, it doesn't look very encouraging.
I lived in the valley for 30+ years and still have family living there, so I'm wondering what you are talking about re "existing business interests don't want to give up their dominance." Which business are you referring to?

The reason a company plans don't pan out is usually because it isn't economically feasible to meet the city requirements, or target locations change, or they can do business cheaper elsewhere....at least in the valley cities I've been involved with.

I think your implication that the majority of jobs are retail & fast food is somewhat office base. I know it certainly eems that way. You might want to actually check the stats for a particular city to see who are the largest employers. in Visalia, the top 3 are the county, Kaweah delta Hospital, & College of the Sequoias. Interesting as this has changed over the years. In Fresno, the top 3 are the Fresno unified school district, county of Fresno, city of Fresno...followed by CSU Fresno. In Fresno's case, you could actually complain that the govt jobs rule...kinda of like Sacto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2014, 02:19 AM
 
Location: Kirkland, WA Formerly Clovis, CA
462 posts, read 738,667 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligirlz View Post
I lived in the valley for 30+ years and still have family living there, so I'm wondering what you are talking about re "existing business interests don't want to give up their dominance." Which business are you referring to?

The reason a company plans don't pan out is usually because it isn't economically feasible to meet the city requirements, or target locations change, or they can do business cheaper elsewhere....at least in the valley cities I've been involved with.

I think your implication that the majority of jobs are retail & fast food is somewhat office base. I know it certainly eems that way. You might want to actually check the stats for a particular city to see who are the largest employers. in Visalia, the top 3 are the county, Kaweah delta Hospital, & College of the Sequoias. Interesting as this has changed over the years. In Fresno, the top 3 are the Fresno unified school district, county of Fresno, city of Fresno...followed by CSU Fresno. In Fresno's case, you could actually complain that the govt jobs rule...kinda of like Sacto.
Ya good luck getting into those govt jobs there with there budget problems. The area has had chronically high unemployment since forever. Good paying jobs are unfortunately few an far between. Big Ag and many of the developers in the area have deep pockets to pay off the city/county politicians. Regardless, i dont think my comment is that off base when you consider the fact that Fresno and many central valley cities have the lowest per capita incomes and household incomes in the nation. Its not that off base if the avg person in the area in fresno makes less than 20k a year. There is just not a very heavy diversification of industry types compared to the coastal cities or other major metro areas.
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 > Sacramento
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, 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