California's Water Crisis. Why?

Build combination nuclear power/desalination plants and everyone can have all the water and electricity they want at tolerable prices (roughly $0.15 per kiloWatt-hour and $0.01 per gallon). But I expect it will take a real water crisis or two (something on the order of the failure of central valley agriculture and bathroom water rationing, much more than the present annoyance) and about ten years before people realize this.

 

Try this one on for size.

In Fresno, the water company doesn't require meters on houses. They pay a flat fee and can use all the water they want....in what amounts to a freakin' desert, there is no financial penalty for overusing water.

Someone explain to me how that makes sense.....

 

For real? OMG . . . .

 

I'm just waiting for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to reveal their plans to use Columbia River water. After all, Portland is just a suburb of LA. The existing water distribution system is 2/3 of the way there. Another 300 miles is no problem.

 

We have tiered water meter rates.

Our (Republican) Mayor has blocked any legislation regarding recycling of water, labeling it "Toilet to Tap" to make sure it conjures up a really disgusting image in the voter's minds.

The City isn't quite Bankrupt but is more focused on the fiscal mismanagement regarding the city pension and our lousy credit rating due to long overdue audits.

Thus no investment in infrastructure or the building of desalinization plants, etc.

What would you have us do? Close the doors and allow no one else to move to San Diego and take up permanent residence? Would you like to deport Southern Californians already in residence to other states that have more water? What would be your criteria?

While legislation such as you propose makes sense, those making the decisions aren't going to suggest it let along pass it.

One of our past mayors had TWO water meters installed on her property. One for her house and one for her yard. That way she could pay LESS according to our tiered water rates. She claimed her garden was used for community and political social functions. Funny, but *I've* never been invited to her garden.

I don't have a lawn. I've got drippers on timers. I've reduced my water bill pretty much as far as it's going to go. I'm not giving up my fruit trees or my vegetable garden. I eat that stuff.

Locally there has been plenty of support for low flow toilets and showerheads. There have been giveaways and rebates so that most residential homes and businesses have installed conservation measures. I'm putting in a dishwasher to cut down on my water use washing dishes.

I see a lot of waste by Commercial businesses and yes, landscaping by the Department of Transportation.

So if you want to target anyone, I suggest you put residents a lot farther down on your list.

Perhaps those areas of California that don't have water meters and don't pay for water should install some and start paying.

I suspect the farmers and ranchers that are fighting over the water probably aren't paying their fair share when compared to the residents. I also suspect they could institute some conservation of water use of their own.

 

That's insane. It sounds like some developer has the water utility in their pocket.

 

I'm loading my shotgun. You guys stay away from the Great Lakes. :spit:

Tom

 

But you are.

As long as there are municipalities that don't have water meters and don't charge for water, as long as agriculture is allows to just dump water so they can maintain their allocation, everyone is NOT being treated equally.

Why should I conserve only to have the water I save wasted by agriculture?

Why should I pay more only so those that don't pay at all can continue to waste it?

As far as I'm concerned EVERYONE should be on the meter. And that includes agriculture.

And everyone should have tiered rates. The more you use, the more you pay.

 

California has a water crisis for three reasons:
1. Its a Desert. Duh
2. No new water reserves have been developed in decades and with the reduction in available water for smelt and what not the remaining existing water system has been overtaxed.
3. 80% of California's water is used for agriculture and NOT residential or drinking water. farmers are unwilling or unable due to cost to implement less water wasting irrigation techniques.

 

Why the reference to "Republican"? We have enough nasty political wars with the upcoming election that we really don't need to talk down to one party or another on a PriusChat forum.

To get the facts straight, Mayor Sanders fully understands the environmental benefits and scientific merit of wastewater recycling. His actual reason for vetoing the bill was that he deemed it was not the best use of financial resources at this time, and that San Diego had other priorities of immediate concern, including the cities' infrastructure problems.

Furthermore, he did not label it "toilet to tap". That was done over a decade ago when wastewater recycling was more in its infancy and the technology wasn't as effective as it is now. Someone (could have been the media) coined the phrase, and now the MEDIA perpetuates it to sell their story to the ignorant masses who eat up that sort of sensationalism.

Mayor Sander's intent has never been to "conjur up disgusting images", as you claim. In the long run, given better financial circumstances, he would give his support to the concept. His veto wasn't a "republican" thing. Rather, it's the action to establish priorities in an incredibly delicate and difficult balancing act.

 

This is a pet peeve of mine as well. There's so many angry, hateful, partisan folks on this forum it's sickening. Very quick to always throw the political bomb whenever the opportunity arises. There's one thing to sarcastically throw out a jab every now and then.... the ones I have a problem with are the ones that truly come across as hateful in tone. These jabs solve nothing and only drive more of a wedge between Americans.

 

Granted, there aren't any easy solutions to appease everyone's concerns over the environment and energy/water resources, given that every solution is intricately woven between the benefits and pitfalls, the science, politics, cost, and waste, and public perception. But, your statement of "too many pitfalls with nuclear" is both vague and misleading. It is absolutely untrue, especially when compared scientifically to all the other options out there.

Most scientists, including environmental engineers and scientists, acknowledge that the public resistance and media pummeling of nuclear power is due to a fear of the unknown. In many public outreach experiments, employing moderate educational awareness of the pros and cons of nuclear power, and of the science of nuclear power generation (cradle to grave), public opinion has proven to lend positive support to nuclear power electricity generation.

 

It may not be technically a desert, but much of Southern California is effectively desert. Fly over San Diego and look south to Tijuana. You can see a clear line where the irrigation ends. Without massive irrigation San Diego would be dry and brown just like Tijuana.

Why is it that people in dry locations insist on having lush vegetation? Las Vegas is positively fascinated with water. Having a lawn in Las Vegas or San Diego is like me heating my yard in the winter to keep my grass green. I just don't get it.

Tom

 

Nuclear fission is one of the cleanest and safest alternatives we have at the moment. Unfortunately, we have suffered several decades of anti-nuclear hysteria that continues to this day. It's not a panacea, and certainly isn't cheap enough to allow for unmetered energy, but it is a good and viable source of power which we need as a bridge to other sustainable energy sources. Fusion will be even better if we can get there, but who knows when if ever that will be commercially feasible.

Tom