How are you going to cut water usage 20%

Submitted by equalizer on May 6, 2015 - 6:23pm
1. Removing my lawn
36% (8 votes)
2. Letting my lawn turn into a rustic prairie
18% (4 votes)
3. Shower with a friend
9% (2 votes)
4. Stop working out so I only have to shower 3 times a week
0% (0 votes)
5. I got a waiver from my vet. My prized Arabian horses need green lawn.
5% (1 vote)
6. Holmby Hills HOA says no. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/15210-Antelo-Pl-Los-Angeles-CA-90077/20530747_zpid/
14% (3 votes)
7. Boycott Almonds, Walnuts, etc since their water usage=residential usage
14% (3 votes)
8. Use Paper Plates/Stop Cooking
0% (0 votes)
9. Other - Better Idea
5% (1 vote)
Total votes: 22
Submitted by flu on May 6, 2015 - 6:31pm.

8. Flush on a full load.

9. Pee on the lawn.

10. Leave my dirty laundry on the shower floor while I take a shower.

11. Use paper plates and cup.

Submitted by Hatfield on May 7, 2015 - 1:00pm.

12. Drink my Scotch neat.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 7, 2015 - 1:02pm.

I think we could all go longer between showers.

Submitted by skerzz on May 8, 2015 - 8:06am.

Hatfield wrote:
12. Drink my Scotch neat.

Well played

Submitted by all on May 8, 2015 - 8:29am.

Water needs to be more expensive. Right now my bill is ~$90, with $33 being access fee. Reducing the usage by 20% would be rather inconvenient and it would save me $10/month.

Submitted by AN on May 8, 2015 - 9:29am.

I saw on the news that the Carlsbad desal plant will supply SD county with 7% of our water needs and will cost us an additional $5-7 every two months. At that cost, I would say, build 15 more. I'd gladly pay $75-105 more every 2 months to not have to deal with this shit anymore. I would just chalk it up as additional cost for living. We can also reclaim all the water and recycle it for landscaping use. I feel like this problem should be a very simple problem to fix, if people really want to fix it.

Submitted by bewildering on May 8, 2015 - 10:51am.

AN wrote:
I saw on the news that the Carlsbad desal plant will supply SD county with 7% of our water needs and will cost us an additional $5-7 every two months. At that cost, I would say, build 15 more. I'd gladly pay $75-105 more every 2 months to not have to deal with this shit anymore. I would just chalk it up as additional cost for living. We can also reclaim all the water and recycle it for landscaping use. I feel like this problem should be a very simple problem to fix, if people really want to fix it.

Australia built desal plants and they are now mothballed. Problem is that they are very expensive and no one wants to pay more for water. In fact, as prices rose people started cutting back leading to less need for Desal.

It would be cheaper for us to charge more for water now.

Submitted by AN on May 8, 2015 - 11:28am.

Australians are paying a lot more than we are, so maybe they've reach the breaking point. Why charge more for the sake of charging more? Why not provide more water at a higher price. That's also just one suggestion. Another one would be, since farms use 75-80% of the water, we can build a pipeline up and down California and collect brown water and use it to water the farms and landscaping. Since its not for drinking, we don't have to filter it as well, which will cost less.

Submitted by bewildering on May 8, 2015 - 12:59pm.

AN wrote:
Australians are paying a lot more than we are, so maybe they've reach the breaking point. Why charge more for the sake of charging more? Why not provide more water at a higher price. That's also just one suggestion. Another one would be, since farms use 75-80% of the water, we can build a pipeline up and down California and collect brown water and use it to water the farms and landscaping. Since its not for drinking, we don't have to filter it as well, which will cost less.

What Australia found was that the increase in price led to a drop in demand. This led to the desal plants not being required. People also complained about the increased prices, and the government mothballed the billion dollar desal plant took the hit for the investment.

If San Diego built 5 desal plants and the price was reflected in water charges then demand would drop. Then there would be no need for the desal plants. This is what happened in Australia...

The better plan is to increase prices until supply/demand become equal. Unfortunately water consumers (especially farmers) do not like this idea, nor do food consumers when they pay more for food.

Submitted by AN on May 8, 2015 - 1:33pm.

We all know increase price will decrease demand when it cross a certain threshold. Like I said, Australia pays a lot more than we do for water, so they've reached that threshold. I think we're far from it. We're currently paying $3.896/HCF for tier 1. Australia is paying around $6.50/HCF for tier 1. So, they're paying about 67% more than we are.

Why would you want to pay more for the same stuff? Water is a necessity and is highly regulated, so they can't charge much more than the cost of getting them.

With your plan, what would stop them from raising it to well above that supply/demand equilibrium? They can argue that it's needed to increase our reserve just in case we need it in the future? Also, what would happen to poor people?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 8, 2015 - 1:37pm.

It's raining in temecula!!!

Submitted by all on May 8, 2015 - 3:30pm.

AN wrote:
Also, what would happen to poor people?

scaredyclassic wrote:
It's raining in temecula!!!

Obviously, they need to move to Temecula.

Submitted by NotCranky on May 8, 2015 - 4:40pm.

Dig a pond and catch rain water for no lawn gardens.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 8, 2015 - 4:59pm.

I think people who own land over some acreage can get permits to drill wells and get free water.

Submitted by joec on May 8, 2015 - 5:40pm.

Agreed that water rates are low compared to power...My water bill is all of $50 and $40 is from all the access charges...Cut 20%? so I save $2 bucks?

Such a joke.

Submitted by Hobie on May 8, 2015 - 7:41pm.

Brian: Ain't no such thing. Drilling is >$15k, plus pumps, etc, then buy the electricity for that free water. Not cheap.

Correction, unless you live next to a river and drop a well under that.

Submitted by paramount on May 8, 2015 - 9:07pm.

1.1 gallons/almond
1.3 gallons/flush
1800 gallons/lb of beef
2.7 billion gallons/delta smelt

May the Delta Smelt live long and prosper.

I hear smelt are very good fried.

Smelt

Submitted by AN on May 8, 2015 - 11:10pm.

That's the other problem. People tend to get stuck in the weeds when in reality, between the Delta Smelt and farming, that' the majority of the water usage. Not to mention this: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04.... "a quarter million gallons a day goes wasted"... yeah, and you're asking me to save a few gallon of water? Freakin' ridiculous.

Submitted by ocrenter on May 9, 2015 - 12:09pm.

Seriously though, if you have already done everything regarding water conservation before and your neighbor's bills are routinely 3x yours, are you still on the hook for that 20% water use reduction?

Submitted by equalizer on May 10, 2015 - 5:25pm.

ocrenter wrote:
Seriously though, if you have already done everything regarding water conservation before and your neighbor's bills are routinely 3x yours, are you still on the hook for that 20% water use reduction?

Under a certain amount ($60-$100/month?)you can't realistically cut usage anymore without closing kitchen, etc.

If your lot is 50% bigger than your neighbor's lot, you have already cut 20% last year and your family size is six plus you can still have
double the neighbor's water usage.

Submitted by AN on May 10, 2015 - 7:48pm.

equalizer wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
Seriously though, if you have already done everything regarding water conservation before and your neighbor's bills are routinely 3x yours, are you still on the hook for that 20% water use reduction?

Under a certain amount ($60-$100/month?)you can't realistically cut usage anymore without closing kitchen, etc.

If your lot is 50% bigger than your neighbor's lot, you have already cut 20% last year and your family size is six plus you can still have
double the neighbor's water usage.

$60-100/ month? I'm paying $30-40/month and I have 3 kids, high flow shower with 5 shower heads, green lawn, etc. If you're paying $60-100/month, I think there are still a lot you can cut.

Submitted by equalizer on May 10, 2015 - 9:54pm.

AN,

Are in the city of San Diego? How many SF is your lawn? I made the mistake of leaving sprinklers on previous Dec-Jan and now my sewer bill is over $60 a month! So if I turn off water main in street my bill is still double yours. My sewer rate should go down this July, unless they decide to raise those rate 25%.

I had SD water person come by for water audit years ago and the guy looked at the sprinklers, and said your issue is your lot, should cement the entire property because the water rate will skyrocket. Instead I put money in college fund rather than spend more on money pit with negative ROI. I cut water usage 20% in July 14 from July 13 and my bill was same! Seems that they keep raising tier 3+ at 20-40% rates.

I asked neighbors and they are paying $120-150/month with half my lawn. That's per month, no pool, no teenagers taking half-hour showers. I will get another water audit, but the only answer is to cut sprinklers in half by removing most of the lawn, turning off RO system under sink and filling 5 gallon bottles from glacier water in front of supermarket at $0.25/gallon.

Here is post from 2012 here (rates are much higher now):
http://piggington.com/average_water_bill...
Submitted by zk on May 3, 2012 - 11:29am.

"I don't know if water is more expensive in Carmel Valley, but I don't know anyone whose water bill is less than $150 for two months. Some friends with huge, grassy yards and pools pay 4 times that much and more. I'd say the average in CV is close to $250 for two months."

These are the SD City rates:

Base fee: $40.62/2months

0 - 8 HCF rate is $3.896 per HCF.
9 - 24 HCF rate is $4.364 per HCF.
25 - 36 HCF rate is $6.234 per HCF.
over 36 HCF rate is $8.766 per HCF.

Here is the Olivenhain Municipal Water District rates for Encinitas area. San Diego sewer rates must be much higher than most places. Rate is Level 1 now

0- 7 HCF rate is $2.25 per HCF.
7-25 HCF rate is $3.93 per HCF.
25-80 HCF rate is $4.65 per HCF.
81+ HCF rate is $5.44 per HCF.

The rates include costs from San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) from which OMWD must purchase 100% of its potable water supply.

For tier 3, SD rate is 33% more and tier 4 is 60% more. But OWMD is buying water from SD why are their rates lower??

Submitted by AN on May 10, 2015 - 10:44pm.

equalizer, I'm in SD city and my lawn area is about 1200-1500 sq-ft. I used to have a pool. A year ago, I replaced the pool, which save me a bit of water. The biggest saver though is the lawn. I completely removed my old lawn with typical tall fescue and replaced it with buffalo grass. That allow me to cut down my watering of the lawn to only 5 minutes a week. It also allow me to turn off the water between October/November and January/February.
I have little kids who still take bath, so I'm pretty sure my usage for inside the house is above average. But the biggest differences is my usage outside.
BTW, just to be clear, we're talking about just the water part, right? And not including all the fees? My bill is between $180-200 every two months, but the water part of that bill is only $60-80. The rest are sewer and other fees.

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 11, 2015 - 11:19am.

Each person uses about 65 gallons a day.

Each persson causes another 1000- 2000 gallons per day depending on diet to be used in order to put food on their plate. That's just growing it.

Lawn and landscaping uses about same at 65 gallons per 1000 sq ft of landscaping being watered.

So a ~2000SF SFR on 10000 SF lot

4 people in a house = 260 gallons/day.
6000 sq ft of landscaping 390 gallons/day.
Food for the 4 people = ~6000 gallons/day.

So you could compare say four SFRs sitting on roughly an acre at 26,600 gallons/day.

Or look at the small apartment complex sitting on the same land with 20 dwelling units and average density of 1.5 people per unit (low). that's 30 people on the same land use, 30 people at 65 gallons/day. Plus the 1500/day for their food is 46,950 gallons per day and that's assuming zero landscaping.

I'm tired of the demonization of lawns and landscaping. The problem is people. The consumption is driven by people.

Each person consumes enough water through their food each day to water a half acre of landscaping.

So blah blah baloney on all the class warfare and bickering and complaining about big green lawns of the rich and not doing their part, one more person uses more than all but the biggest lawns.

Submitted by Doofrat on May 11, 2015 - 1:22pm.

Just bought a house that has a pool and the dissolved solids and chemicals are maxed out. Dump chemicals in and they just disappear. Decided I need to replace the water. Found a new thing where they come out with a R/O trailer and for $500 they filter all your water down to a level that's got even less than the tap. Total water loss is only 15%. The company that makes the systems is pretty much booked up through summer, but got a spot in June from one of their clients that bought their system: http://www.savewatersd.com/Recycle-Pool-...

Advantages are there is no risk of the pool lifting or collapsing once the weight of the water is removed, you don't have to worry about plaster drying/cracking, you don't have to rent a pump to drain the pool, you don't have to pay for the water replacement so it takes a bite out of the cost, you don't have to do anything except meet the guy in the morning to hook up the hoses...Oh, and I am saving the planet.

Submitted by meadandale on May 11, 2015 - 1:25pm.

We could also recycle the waste water and use it to recharge groundwater supplies by letting it filter down naturally. This has been done elsewhere.

Submitted by livinincali on May 12, 2015 - 7:47am.

no_such_reality wrote:
Each person uses about 65 gallons a day.

Each persson causes another 1000- 2000 gallons per day depending on diet to be used in order to put food on their plate. That's just growing it.

Lawn and landscaping uses about same at 65 gallons per 1000 sq ft of landscaping being watered.

So a ~2000SF SFR on 10000 SF lot

4 people in a house = 260 gallons/day.
6000 sq ft of landscaping 390 gallons/day.
Food for the 4 people = ~6000 gallons/day.

So you could compare say four SFRs sitting on roughly an acre at 26,600 gallons/day.

Or look at the small apartment complex sitting on the same land with 20 dwelling units and average density of 1.5 people per unit (low). that's 30 people on the same land use, 30 people at 65 gallons/day. Plus the 1500/day for their food is 46,950 gallons per day and that's assuming zero landscaping.

I'm tired of the demonization of lawns and landscaping. The problem is people. The consumption is driven by people.

Each person consumes enough water through their food each day to water a half acre of landscaping.

So blah blah baloney on all the class warfare and bickering and complaining about big green lawns of the rich and not doing their part, one more person uses more than all but the biggest lawns.

The problem with this argument is that the food you eat and the gallons of water associated with it aren't necessarily produced in CA. A pound of beef is close to 2000 gallons of water but that beef was highly like to be raised somewhere other than CA. It was likely raised in the Midwest where there was plenty of water this year.

Green lawns in the middle of the desert are a luxury item and they are very visible so of course they are going to be attacked when there's a water shortage. I think the best solution is to just raise water rates over some basic threshold to the point where some portion of people will choose a brown lawn or alternative landscaping instead of paying some significant amount (200/mo?) to maintain a luxury good.

Submitted by AN on May 12, 2015 - 8:06am.

Or, we can just grow our food in other part of America where there are plenty of water. Then there would be plenty of water for people. We can import our food from other states or countries.

Submitted by NotCranky on May 12, 2015 - 9:42am.

AN wrote:
Or, we can just grow our food in other part of America where there are plenty of water. Then there would be plenty of water for people. We can import our food from other states or countries.

There has been a huge local food movement, AN. Did you seen any value in that message? It also take a lot more fuel to move food from one place to another so that someone can have as much water for their pool and green lawn. That fuel has to be stolen from someone to keep the prices of groceries down, where the poor can eat them. Jobs, export agriculture means export job?.Why don't we export high earners so they can use the water for pools and lawns someplace else?

Can we send our soil, temperate climate, and sun someplace else in America so they can grow the veggies there?

Walnuts before pools and lawn.

Submitted by AN on May 12, 2015 - 10:13am.

Blogstar wrote:
There has been a huge local food movement, AN. Did you seen any value in that message? It also take a lot more fuel to move food from one place to another so that someone can have as much water for their pool and green lawn. That fuel has to be stolen from someone to keep the prices of groceries down, where the poor can eat them. Jobs, export agriculture means export job?.Why don't we export high earners so they can use the water for pools and lawns someplace else?

Can we send our soil, temperate climate, and sun someplace else in America so they can grow the veggies there?

Walnuts before pools and lawn.

As I've said before, I think we should also conserve. But I would rather have economic/population growth than almonds/walnuts. More people will require more food, which as stated, will require more water, which we don't have readily. There are A LOT of farm land in middle america and they used to grow a lot more than just corn. But with the who Ethanol mandate for fuel, middle America along with big farm (Monsanto) have been pushing for corn. We can eliminate the Ethanol mandate and get farmers in middle America to grow more than just corn. If we just grow 30% of our produce from other areas in America, that would solve our water problem. I'm not saying we need to go 100%.
I'm looking at this problem holistically and want to have a solution that will fix this problem indefinitely. I don't want to blame one group or another and I don't want the solution to come from one group. I think we all can do our part. But you have to look at all the wasters, not just residential. I've stated many solutions here, from building more desal, toilet to tap, stop wasting water on the Delta smelt, stop wasting water to heat SF city hall, have some farming moved to other part of America (produce that doesn't need our climate), we all can switch over to buffalo grass instead of tall fescue if you want green lawn (that will cut watering drastically), we can convert lawn to more drought tolerant plants, etc. I'm sure there are many many more solutions than the only I just listed.

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 12, 2015 - 11:34am.

California's developed water sources are used as follows:

48% environmental purposes. i.e Delta Smelt, Salmon, etc.
41% Agriculture:
11% urban/suburban human usage of which 3% is landscape usage.

Of the 3% that is landscaping, up to 50% is waste from over watering, over spray etc.

So really, make the bellweather icon of waste the item that is using about 1% of the water.

BTW, regular water guzzling lawn, uses about 4 HCF a month per 1000 sf during the summer. 4000 sf of lawn is 16 HCF. that's a 50 ft by 80 ft hunk of grass.

Do the math. Take four people, add the 65 gallons per day per person, that's another 10 HCF.

That puts you at 26 HCF per month. Which barely gets you out of tier 2.

Will you eat less Chicken? Most chicken you eat is grown right here in California. It takes a mere 3000 gallons to produce one chicken. That's the same amount to water 1000sf of lawn during the height of summer.

Lawns are easy, but trying to tell Americans to eat less meat, instant fail.

Let's make proposals and create water police and introduce up to $10,000 fines for something that is less than 1% to total.

It's about control and demogoguery. Bread and circuses for the masses.

Submitted by livinincali on May 13, 2015 - 7:57am.

no_such_reality wrote:

Will you eat less Chicken? Most chicken you eat is grown right here in California. It takes a mere 3000 gallons to produce one chicken. That's the same amount to water 1000sf of lawn during the height of summer.

Lawns are easy, but trying to tell Americans to eat less meat, instant fail.

Let's make proposals and create water police and introduce up to $10,000 fines for something that is less than 1% to total.

It's about control and demogoguery. Bread and circuses for the masses.

The funny thing is you suggest we control how much chicken people eat so you can keep your water intensive landscaping. The water required keep lawns green through the summer in a desert is one of the least productive things you can do with potable water. Raising chickens, growing crops, bottling water, etc are all economically productive. Your lawn is not, it's a luxury good.

I think the best solution is to just raise water rates and then let people figure out if whatever they are doing with the water is worth it or not. Some people will pay to keep their landscaping others won't. Some people will put in grey water capturing. Some farmers may decide to switch to crops that are less water intensive, or maybe they fallow arable land and don't grow anything. Obviously you can't just move almond trees or start a productive almond tree grove in some other location quickly. I don't know what to do about long cycle crops that are water intensive. Of course many of those farmers are using water from the aquafier which they have rights to.

In the end let the free market figure it out. Just setup water teiring system, with some possible exceptions for truly productive activities that can't easily be moved or changed.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 13, 2015 - 8:04am.

Chickens don't drink much. At home, about 30 gallons to get to 6 m. Per internet.

Factory farm prob. Different as they don't wander about foraging for insects.

It would be difficult to kill chickens you know.

Submitted by Hobie on May 13, 2015 - 8:36am.

Arbitrarily raising rates to encourage conservation is the same argument used with energy and frankly is a cop out.

Where is the forward thinking of the agencies whose job is to provide the infrastructure for the increased growth in population?

How come new surface water storage dams have not been constructed in decades? They provide electricity as well as banking water reserves.

Why are building permits still being issued to new homes while we are forced to cut our use to supply them?

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 13, 2015 - 11:35am.

scaredyclassic wrote:
Chickens don't drink much. At home, about 30 gallons to get to 6 m. Per internet.

Factory farm prob. Different as they don't wander about foraging for insects.

It would be difficult to kill chickens you know.

Most of the water comes in supplemental feedings, maintenance activities, butchering, etc.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 13, 2015 - 1:31pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
Chickens don't drink much. At home, about 30 gallons to get to 6 m. Per internet.

Factory farm prob. Different as they don't wander about foraging for insects.

It would be difficult to kill chickens you know.

Do you have chicken now?

Submitted by treehugger on May 13, 2015 - 5:07pm.

Water leaks from our potable distribution system average 10%. Outdated water mains and crumbling infrastructure contribute to loss, that to water districts is considered acceptable losses.

The cost to upgrade our nations infrastructure would be a quadrillion dollars.

I do not appreciate the teenager at my local restaurant informing "we are in a drought" when I request a large glass of water to go with my vegetarian meal. People are generally stupid.

Submitted by mike92104 on May 13, 2015 - 7:52pm.

AN wrote:
Blogstar wrote:
There has been a huge local food movement, AN. Did you seen any value in that message? It also take a lot more fuel to move food from one place to another so that someone can have as much water for their pool and green lawn. That fuel has to be stolen from someone to keep the prices of groceries down, where the poor can eat them. Jobs, export agriculture means export job?.Why don't we export high earners so they can use the water for pools and lawns someplace else?

Can we send our soil, temperate climate, and sun someplace else in America so they can grow the veggies there?

Walnuts before pools and lawn.

As I've said before, I think we should also conserve. But I would rather have economic/population growth than almonds/walnuts. More people will require more food, which as stated, will require more water, which we don't have readily. There are A LOT of farm land in middle america and they used to grow a lot more than just corn. But with the who Ethanol mandate for fuel, middle America along with big farm (Monsanto) have been pushing for corn. We can eliminate the Ethanol mandate and get farmers in middle America to grow more than just corn. If we just grow 30% of our produce from other areas in America, that would solve our water problem. I'm not saying we need to go 100%.
I'm looking at this problem holistically and want to have a solution that will fix this problem indefinitely. I don't want to blame one group or another and I don't want the solution to come from one group. I think we all can do our part. But you have to look at all the wasters, not just residential. I've stated many solutions here, from building more desal, toilet to tap, stop wasting water on the Delta smelt, stop wasting water to heat SF city hall, have some farming moved to other part of America (produce that doesn't need our climate), we all can switch over to buffalo grass instead of tall fescue if you want green lawn (that will cut watering drastically), we can convert lawn to more drought tolerant plants, etc. I'm sure there are many many more solutions than the only I just listed.

Unfortunately middle america has it's own water issues. Most of that farm land pumps it's water out of the Ogallala Aquifer which is also being depleted rapidly.

There's no one fix.

As for desalinization, I think it's smart to build plants with the idea that they'll go offline every once in a while. When we get plenty of rain, and our water supply is in good shape, shut them down and use the cheaper water. When water supplies are starting to get tight, fire them back up.

Submitted by equalizer on May 13, 2015 - 10:03pm.

AN,

My lawn area is pushing 2000SF and its Marathon 2, which is probably sucks up water. Should have UCVerde grass only.

I was referring to entire bill that on my street is $250-350/2 months depending on lawn size, season.

Submitted by equalizer on May 13, 2015 - 10:28pm.

treehugger wrote:
I do not appreciate the teenager at my local restaurant informing "we are in a drought" when I request a large glass of water to go with my vegetarian meal. People are generally stupid.

But teenager would have no problem with the either bottled water or Coke, both which use CA water.

Bottled
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/05/1...

Submitted by AN on May 14, 2015 - 12:33am.

equalizer wrote:
AN,

My lawn area is pushing 2000SF and its Marathon 2, which is probably sucks up water. Should have UCVerde grass only.

I was referring to entire bill that on my street is $250-350/2 months depending on lawn size, season.


$250-350 for an entire bill isn't too crazy. I thought you were talking just for water. Yes, if you convert to buffalo grass, you save some more. But buffalo grass isn't for everyone. Also you can cover some of that 2000 sq-ft with pavers. That would help.

Submitted by livinincali on May 14, 2015 - 6:34am.

Hobie wrote:
Arbitrarily raising rates to encourage conservation is the same argument used with energy and frankly is a cop out.

Where is the forward thinking of the agencies whose job is to provide the infrastructure for the increased growth in population?

How come new surface water storage dams have not been constructed in decades? They provide electricity as well as banking water reserves.

Why are building permits still being issued to new homes while we are forced to cut our use to supply them?

Where does the money come from to build those dams. Where does the money come from to build desal? One way or another rates will need to go up. Might as well raise the rates now and then save that money to build dams and desal in the future. Of course we know that would never happen. The extra money if there is any will be spent on employee compensation and other frills.

Submitted by AN on May 14, 2015 - 9:08am.

livinincali wrote:
Where does the money come from to build those dams. Where does the money come from to build desal? One way or another rates will need to go up. Might as well raise the rates now and then save that money to build dams and desal in the future. Of course we know that would never happen. The extra money if there is any will be spent on employee compensation and other frills.

The bullet train?

Submitted by jeff303 on May 14, 2015 - 9:31am.

I wish people would stop talking about desal plants like this is SimCity 2000. In local news comment sections, you always see someone parroting the old "just build 12 more of these already!!!" line, like it's the easiest thing in the world to just plonk them down. They're incredibly expensive to build and run (consuming vast amounts of electricity), and in future wet years, people WILL be complaining about "government waste" when they (rightly) sit idle. Plus, we'd have to figure out what to do with the absolutely spectacular amount of brine that would be produced.

Also, the whole "delta smelt" thing is a bit of a canard. It's not just for one type of fish, but rather the entire ecosystem of the delta. Not to mention the "environmental use is half the water" line which is patently false, as explained here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-doing/

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 14, 2015 - 10:02am.

Yes they'll complain about government waste. kind of like watching the LA DWP deal with main breaks on a weekly basis that are losing tens of thousands of gallons for a small one to the 75,000 gallons per minute break last July by UCLA. That's 100 HCF a minute. Or four household monthly use per minute flooding away.

But again, let's gripe about my 2000 feet of grass.

Submitted by CA renter on May 16, 2015 - 12:01am.

livinincali wrote:
Hobie wrote:
Arbitrarily raising rates to encourage conservation is the same argument used with energy and frankly is a cop out.

Where is the forward thinking of the agencies whose job is to provide the infrastructure for the increased growth in population?

How come new surface water storage dams have not been constructed in decades? They provide electricity as well as banking water reserves.

Why are building permits still being issued to new homes while we are forced to cut our use to supply them?

Where does the money come from to build those dams. Where does the money come from to build desal? One way or another rates will need to go up. Might as well raise the rates now and then save that money to build dams and desal in the future. Of course we know that would never happen. The extra money if there is any will be spent on employee compensation and other frills.

I get where you're coming from, livin, but Hobie's suggestion is more "free market" than yours. In a free market, prices are determined by supply and demand. You're suggesting we use price controls, which is the antithesis of a free market economy.

FWIW, I concur with Hobie's feelings about the water problems and have always resented the fact that they tell existing residents to use less water and energy as they issue more and more building permits.

Droughts have long been a part of our history in the SW United States. Every building should have been built with gray water reclamation capabilities (not to mention solar panels) over the past few decades. It ticks me off that we've long had the technology, but none of these very logical systems have been mandated (not free market, but never claimed to be 100% in favor of free markets). We could be providing almost all of our own energy, and our residential water usage could probably be cut nearly in half if we had made these changes as the technology became available.