« prev   random   next »

6
0

New California Law Limits How Much Water People Can Use to 50 gallons

By just_dregalicious following x   2018 Jun 2, 10:57pm 2,129 views   72 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


The people in our government are insane. On the bright side this will drop property prices...

Some youtube videos claim the eventual goal is only 30 gallons per day and that they'll be cutting people off by way of smart meters.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/31/california-water-limits/

SACRAMENTO (CBS13) – There will soon be more focus on flushes and scrutiny over showers with a new law signed in by the governor.

California is now the first state in the nation to enact tough new water-efficiency standards. The controversial rules limit how many gallons a person can use inside their home per day.

RELATED: Sacramento Looks To Ease Farmers’ Groundwater Use With Wastewater

“So that everyone in California is at least integrating efficiency into our preparations for climate change,” said Felicia Marcus, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.

So, what are the new rules?

In 2022, the new indoor water standard will be 55 gallons per person, per day. by 2030, it will fall to 50 gallons.

“With a child and every day having to wash clothes, that’s, just my opinion, not feasible. But I get it and I understand that we’re trying to preserve…but 55 gallons a day?” said Tanya Allen, who has a 4-year-old daughter.

Just how many gallons do household chores take?

ALSO: 12,000 New Homes In Folsom Ranch Project Raise Water Supply Worries

An 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water, a load of laundry up to 40, and a bathtub can hold 80 to 100 gallons of water.

“She likes to bathe three times a day and she does laundry all day,” said Rocka Mitchell from Texas.

He and his wife Ginger are living in Sacramento for work and say it would be hard to conserve.

“I couldn’t do it. My family is way too large,” she said.

Retrofitting homes with water-efficient fixtures could help cut back.

“I think the average new home is 35 gallons per person per day, so we are not talking emergency conservation here,” Marcus said.

Greg Bundesen with the Sacramento Suburban Water District says they already assist customers.

RELATED: California Water Year Below Average, Reservoirs Benefit From Last Year’s Record

“We offer toilet rebates, we offer complementary showerheads, we offer complementary faucets,” he said.

The new laws also require water districts to perform stress tests of their water supply and curb loss due to leaks.

“Right now we lose up to 30 percent of urban water just to leaks in the system,” Marcus said.

Agencies believe fixing those leaks and educating residents is the key.

“Some people may not be aware that you’re going to use a lot more water in a bath and you wouldn’t shower and it’s our job to make sure they’re informed,” Bundesen said.

Water districts who don’t comply face fines up to $10,000 a day.

The ultimate goal is to make conservation a way of life in California. Outdoor water use is also covered by the new laws.

Standards will be based on a region’s climate and other factors instead of just one standard for the whole state.

« First    « Previous    Comments 33 - 72 of 72    Last »

33   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 4, 4:07pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
FortWayne says
Marcus are you telling me water limits are a long term solution?


I think it will be debated and there will be a better way. Why not just make people pay an increasing rate for water they use over a certain amount per month. Make the price scale up in such a way that it's a strong incentive to conserve.


I don't think it's a solution. They tried this same thing with fuel, and it failed, created inflation. Gas sellers made money, big time. Everyone else was fucked.

Same thing here, water price will skyrocket. The poor and the middle class will be fucked. Only solution is more desalination plants to create more water. But that's not what this shitty government wants, they want us all to suffer and pay more for less. While their rich cocksucker friends run off with all the money, and no water shortages.
34   MbS   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 4, 4:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
FortWayne says
Marcus are you telling me water limits are a long term solution?


I think it will be debated and there will be a better way. Why not just make people pay an increasing rate for water they use over a certain amount per month. Make the price scale up in such a way that it's a strong incentive to conserve.


.... or steal.
35   marcus   ignore (4)   2018 Jun 7, 11:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
They tried this same thing with fuel


Not the same. Gas is not a utility. Taxes on gas probably do work to incentivize purchase of fuel efficient cars.
36   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 7, 11:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Limited resource.

Solution isn’t limiting people, but creating more.

marcus says
FortWayne says
They tried this same thing with fuel


Not the same. Gas is not a utility. Taxes on gas probably do work to incentivize purchase of fuel efficient cars.
37   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 11:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Not the same. Gas is not a utility. Taxes on gas probably do work to incentivize purchase of fuel efficient cars.


You know that’s not the intention, just like wolves aren’t intending to keep deer populations sustainable when they kill a few dozen fawns and eat them.
38   georgeliberte   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 4:17pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


I just acquired a herd of pet elephants and I am frankly concerned with this law.
39   krc   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 4:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Isn't this really an infrastructure problem with no large dams build in the last 40+ years? Of course, folks say that Los Vaqueros, etc Mel. and so forth would qualify but those are drops in the bucket compared to Shasta/Oroville etc.. Not sure where we are to directly pumping back into aquifers etc (helps with limiting evaporation, etc..). Fact is: this is about government control pure and simple. If you do the simple math, more rain falls across this state then we ever would need to capture to satisfy nearly unlimited growth.

Even if you don't want to build new dams because (1) most of this would have to be in high sierra areas with granite to prevent evaporation, etc... and (2) the environment / regulatory hurdles to do such a build out cannot be overcome (even if no politics), there is still the simple option of capturing water the falls on cities TODAY.

That we have a drought problem is contrived. And, it is already against the law afaik that that you can't just sink your own well anymore. The age of DIY has been over since the mid 90s and the cost to sink a well is extensive ( we are talking 20k min for 200' hole - retail). Farmers actually have started buying their own rigs and setting up consortiums/proxies to meet the permitting and well driller certifications.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=WAT§ionNum=13750.5

Most of this is contrived. There is far more water that simply runs off into the ocean that is not captured (and not counting river / watersheds) as well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2015/04/15/why-does-california-let-billions-of-gallons-of-fresh-water-flow-straight-into-the-ocean/2/#2c737b9c6dda
40   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 7, 4:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

All while they constantly make excuses why we can’t have desalination plants, and fucking hippies scream how desert eco system would suffer if we were to build water making plants there.

Government population control.
41   Strategist   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 7, 6:55pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The most economical solution is to reduce agricultural water use by 5%, which would result in an increase of 20% for household use. Right now 80% of the water goes to agriculture. We export almonds to China when each little almond uses up 1 gallon of water. We also supply agriculture products to the rest of the country.
Either we produce and sell less agriculture products, or we tack on some kind of an export tax to pay for water desalination plants. Those plants don't come cheap.
I'm already paying $350.00 per month just for water, and I can't afford it.
Baltimore residents pay nothing for their water. Nothing. So unfair.
@zzyzzx it's only fair you pay part of my water bill. Your fair share comes to $100.00 per month. Thank You.
42   Strategist   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 7, 6:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
All while they constantly make excuses why we can’t have desalination plants, and fucking hippies scream how desert eco system would suffer if we were to build water making plants there.


If we drain all the lakes and underground water supply the eco system would suffer even more. The Colorado river is already having eco problems due to us siphoning too much water from it.
43   Strategist   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 7, 7:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

georgeliberte says

I just acquired a herd of pet elephants and I am frankly concerned with this law.


A lot of the water they drink is probably their own pee.
44   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 7, 7:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I get that we don’t want to deplete a vital resource. Almonds aren’t that important.

But why not build desalination plants. Seems like a no brainer solution.

Strategist says
FortWayne says
All while they constantly make excuses why we can’t have desalination plants, and fucking hippies scream how desert eco system would suffer if we were to build water making plants there.


If we drain all the lakes and underground water supply the eco system would suffer even more. The Colorado river is already having eco problems due to us siphoning too much water from it.
45   MbS   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 7, 7:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
I get that we don’t want to deplete a vital resource. Almonds aren’t that important.

But why not build desalination plants. Seems like a no brainer solution.


Yeah, we'll get to it once we done building the choo-choo and the delta tunnels.
46   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 8:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.
47   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 8:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What about swimming pools of the rich and famous-do they get exceptions?
48   Strategist   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 7, 8:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
I get that we don’t want to deplete a vital resource. Almonds aren’t that important.

But why not build desalination plants. Seems like a no brainer solution.


It's coming to that. We will build desalination plants, as will regions around the globe that need more water. It takes a lot of energy to extract salt free water from the ocean, and that makes it very expensive. Declining costs of solar energy will make desalination plants more and more feasible.
My guess....By 2030 we won't have a water shortage problem as declining clean energy costs along with advancing technology in desalination plants will make drinkable water extraction from the ocean very economical.
49   FortWayne   ignore (2)   2018 Jun 7, 8:49pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

ThreeBays says
I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.


yeah, and some of us have backyards that do require watering. if you limit that watering, you'll turn CA into a damn desert. That's destruction of our society.
50   MbS   ignore (3)   2018 Jun 7, 10:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
ThreeBays says
I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.


yeah, and some of us have backyards that do require watering. if you limit that watering, you'll turn CA into a damn desert. That's destruction of our society.


Watering replentishes aquifers. Why would we limit something like that? If it's good for aquifers it's good for California!
51   ThreeBays   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 11:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
ThreeBays says
I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.


yeah, and some of us have backyards that do require watering. if you limit that watering, you'll turn CA into a damn desert. That's destruction of our society.


This whole thing is only about indoor water usage.
52   krc   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 7, 11:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

55gal "plus" estimated landscape usage since most have one meter for water limited by statue. Check the actual bill out.

(B) For landscape irrigated through dedicated or residential meters or connections, water efficiency equivalent to the standards of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance set forth in Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 490) of Division 2 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, as in effect the later of the year of the landscape's installation or 1992. An urban retail water supplier using the approach specified in this subparagraph shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or other best available technology to develop an accurate estimate of landscaped areas.

local rag:
https://patch.com/california/sanbruno/coming-limit-50-gallons-water-person-day

I really find it odd that we are willing to continually cede power to government over our water use when there is actually plenty right now with planning and capacity extension. Simply do the math - look at average rainfall over a geographic region and calculate the billions of acres of water and where does it go? We let water out of reservoirs to ... get this .. make way for the snow melt. This means there is simply not the storage that is needed. Also, for salmon/fish etc... there are planned mandatory releases of cold water as well, etc...

It is interesting how the government has its people pointing fingers at each other as the "main" culprit. Farmers... no ... the high growth of population. ... no ... the beef industry. no... almonds... the fish. Etc...

Divide and conquer instead of actually fixing the problem.

Until 2012 it was actually ILLEGAL in CA to recapture rainwater. Gov Brown did fix that with his rainwater recapture act. But it is minimal effect.
53   krc   ignore (0)   2018 Jun 8, 7:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Additional link to give an idea of how much is released needlessly, w. Folsom as an ex.
https://www.kqed.org/science/549358/california-reservoirs-are-dumping-water-in-a-drought-but-science-could-change-that
54   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 10:01am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
Baltimore residents pay nothing for their water. Nothing. So unfair.
@zzyzzx it's only fair you pay part of my water bill. Your fair share comes to $100.00 per month. Thank You.


Water is actually very expensive in Baltimore City. You see, the property tax rates are already 2X the surrounding area, and the income taxes higher as well. So the Democrats here decided to make water extremely expensive (like more expensive it is out west) as a way of increasing revenue.

https://baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/water-bills-will-soon-be-too-expensive-for-more-than-half-of-baltimore-households-report-says/
Water Bills Will Soon be Too Expensive for More than Half of Baltimore Households, Report Says

The Boston-based economist found by analyzing the city’s census tracts that water unaffordability — already a problem for a third of households under international standards before the rate hikes took effect – has been exacerbated to a point where it’s depriving the city of revenue simply because many can no longer afford their bills.

At median income levels relative to a resident’s neighborhood, two-thirds of the city was able to afford water and sewer bills in 2016. By 2019, that share will drop to “more than half,” Colton wrote – and that doesn’t even include those who make far below median income.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-water-bill-increase-20160831-story.html

Baltimore residents will pay about 33 percent more for water and be charged two new fees under a three-year plan.

The Board of Estimates voted to increase the water rate an average of 9.9 percent annually and sewer rates 9 percent a year through fiscal year 2019. The plan also calls for new "infrastructure" and "account management" charges. This is on top of O'Malley's rain tax.


They also switched from quarterly billing to monthly billing to hid the increase. My monthly bill is about equal to my previous quarterly bill from just a couple of years ago. The city blames aging infrastructure, but it's really overspending on education and lavish pensions, and corruption. In the surrounding suburban areas, water is still cheap yes.
55   Call It Crazy   ignore (5)   2018 Jun 8, 11:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
FortWayne says
Can't we get a daddy figure as a leader that will tell us don't worry be happy ?

The bastards are too expensive. They build scarcity into our horizons hoping to make us grovel to their donors.
56   phombar   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 10:03am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Phombar The City of Los Angeles, CA now offers free recycled water to all LADWP customers. Customers can now get FREE, disinfected, recycled water for approved purposes, free of charge. "I can't say FREE enough".

Just bring your water containers with water-tight lids to the Residential Recycled Water Fill Station (RWFS).
Customers may use recycled water only for landscaping purposes, such as maintain trees, shrubs, gardens and lawns.

The web site to go to for this and more information is where I got this information: https//www.lacitysan.org - Phone number: Customer Care Center 1.800.773.2489

If Los Angeles California can do this then why can't the whole state of California do it too?
57   MbS   ignore (3)   2018 Oct 3, 10:34am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

phombar says
Phombar The City of Los Angeles, CA now offers free recycled water to all LADWP customers. Customers can now get FREE, disinfected, recycled water for approved purposes, free of charge. "I can't say FREE enough".

Just bring your water containers with water-tight lids to the Residential Recycled Water Fill Station (RWFS).
Customers may use recycled water only for landscaping purposes, such as maintain trees, shrubs, gardens and lawns.

The web site to go to for this and more information is where I got this information: https//www.lacitysan.org - Phone number: Customer Care Center 1.800.773.2489

If Los Angeles California can do this then why can't the whole state of California do it too?


Many cities in SFBA are doing this. The problem
is: it's a fucking hassle to drive to the processing plant, fill the drums, water your lawns, repeat. Only retirees can do it on regular basis - the rest simply don't have the time. Also, that water, while awesome for the grass, is not good for trees.
58   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 12:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

DASKAA says
it's a fucking hassle to drive to the processing plant, fill the drums, water your lawns, repeat.


Listen, I like green lawns. Makes a yard look nice. But at what point do you just say fuck it and go with something else more favorable to the climate for your landscaping needs? Seems like water has been a problem the last decade or so in CA.

Maintaining a yard out there sounds like someone bought a pool liner, but didn't order the walls and they're trying to fill the liner to swim in it. You didn't ask, but just my 0.02.
59   MbS   ignore (3)   2018 Oct 3, 12:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
DASKAA says
it's a fucking hassle to drive to the processing plant, fill the drums, water your lawns, repeat.


Listen, I like green lawns. Makes a yard look nice. But at what point do you just say fuck it and go with something else more favorable to the climate for your landscaping needs? Seems like water has been a problem the last decade or so in CA.


The water was only a "problem" when we had state-imposed rationing for one summer. Now everything is back to normal and nobody is running around with drums anymore. (But it's a good thing we tried and now everybody knows that this is not a viable fucking option). What do you propose we have instead of lawns in our backyards? Dirt? Gravel? Astroturf? Concrete? It's not about "looks" - the temperature over a lawn is 10-15 degrees cooler on a hot day than over the above alternatives. Astroturf is worse than concrete in this regard, btw.

PS. Dense, paved-over cities are hell in summer for this exact reason - no fucking grass.
60   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 1:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

DASKAA says
PS. Dense, paved-over cities are hell in summer for this exact reason - no fucking grass.


Agreed.

DASKAA says
What do you propose we have instead of lawns in our backyards? Dirt? Gravel? Astroturf? Concrete? It's not about "looks" - the temperature over a lawn is 10-15 degrees cooler on a hot day than over the above alternatives. Astroturf is worse than concrete in this regard, btw.


I don't have an alternative for you frankly. I'd say something what the landscape would look like prior to the development of the area? I get the heat island effect, but I'd say water probably is more important. Phoenix/Scottsdale have some amazing landscaping and very little/no grass and massive heat. At some point the water will be more expensive compared to getting an A/C unit or watering the lawn to keep temps lower.

Not being critical. Every place to live has its flaws. This is just one of them. Trust me, winters are just dandy here in Chicagoland.
61   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 2:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
Solution isn’t limiting people, but creating more.

Creating more water.... Great idea.

People in Phoenix getting their water from the Colorado should think about it.
62   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 2:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
Same thing here, water price will skyrocket. The poor and the middle class will be fucked. Only solution is more desalination plants to create more water.

Riight, because desalination plants create cheap water for the poor.
63   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 2:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
The most economical solution is to reduce agricultural water use by 5%, which would result in an increase of 20% for household use. Right now 80% of the water goes to agriculture.

Ok so Strategist gets us 60 gallons instead of 50....
Thank you!
64   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 2:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FortWayne says
ThreeBays says
I think that once you remove landscaping water, the 50 gal usage isn't out of line with what most Californians already use per person. Using more than that on average indoors is pretty wasteful, for example from using inefficient washers, and it is worth having a limit because it's something that can be corrected.

When you add landscaping then usage can be a lot higher than that especially in the posher areas.


yeah, and some of us have backyards that do require watering.

Some of us in CA still act like they live in New England. Green lawns are an heresy in CA.
65   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 2:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Riight, because desalination plants create cheap water for the poor.


Water in SoCal is one of the cheapest commodities around. We could triple the price and still be fine. I pay less than $3/day for water and sewage treatment for a family of 5 (with mother-in-law) and I water my yard 3-4 times a week.

Besides - residential water use in California is only a tiny percentage of the overall water use. It's a joke that the moron Democrats in Sacramento make the tax payers burn out their yards while the vast majority of the water is used for environmental and agricultural purposes.



66   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 3:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
Water in SoCal is one of the cheapest commodities around. We could triple the price and still be fine. I pay less than $3/day for water and sewage treatment for a family of 5 (with mother-in-law) and I water my yard 3-4 times a week.


That's not cheap my friend. That's mucho expensive. And if you 3x's that $3/day would really fuck some people up. $270/mo at $9/day for water/sewer? My worst gas or electric bills barely even touch that amount. I'm at $1.80 per day for sewer and water ($54/mo, two younger kids, one kid bath, one kid shower, pool and a legit garden). And I'm not even on Lake Michigan water. It could be even cheaper.

I'm sure you get paid more out there. But the little things add up. I like the change of seasons for the most part here, but totally understand why CA is so attractive. Income tax is where my shit gets fucked up out there versus IL. I like to travel and that would destroy that budget for the wife and I. Plus I like the Caribbean and flights from there are too long for my liking from what I've researched.
67   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 3:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
That's not cheap my friend. That's mucho expensive. And if you 3x's that $3/day would really fuck some people up. $270/mo at $9/day for water/sewer?


Three dollars a day for basically unlimited clean water (and sewage treatment) to live in a desert/Mediterranean climate where I have nice lush green grass and beautiful flowering Hibiscus trees all year round?

I don't have AC and barely run my gas furnace in the winter - so my utilities average out.

Alot of areas in the East Coast actually pay more for their water than I do despite them getting much more rain.

My point is that water is a solvable problem without FORCING us to turn our yards into shit Arizona rock gardens like the Democrats in Sacramento want us to do.
68   MbS   ignore (3)   2018 Oct 3, 5:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
what the landscape would look like prior to the development of the area?


Pasture with grass brought over by Spaniards. The type which goes completetly dry and yellow by early May and back to green in mid-December. Forest (either redwood or oak) before that. It's not a desert and never was.
69   MbS   ignore (3)   2018 Oct 3, 5:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
At some point the water will be more expensive compared to getting an A/C unit or watering the lawn to keep temps lower.


In CA all prices are artificially skewed: power, water, gasoline... There is no telling what will be more expensive when.
70   just_dregalicious   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 8:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Have to agree with Strat that we use too much on agriculture - the wrong kind of agriculture. Anyone ever see Chinatown with young Jack Nicholson? A lot of that is true and sadly was recapitulated since then. I seem to remember a single almond mafioso involved?

Just don't take away my avocados which are perhaps the worst.

We need lots and lots more desal and reservoirs but the econazi's want us to actually move backwards on that front. We (in SD) should plan to wean off of the colorado if for no other reason the Salton Sea is drying up (faster than ever after the very recent water deal we made) and once that goes the air around here will be shit. It's already fucking up the Imperial Valley and blowing into the LA area.
71   just_dregalicious   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 3, 8:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Does anyone think that after this law actually goes into effect it won't either be:

1. quickly reversed
2. eventually reversed after demoncrats are voted out of Sac

Long ago I would have said (1) or (2) but these days I really don't think so.
72   HEYYOU   ignore (18)   2018 Oct 3, 8:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It's not the amount of water, it's the number of clever apes using it.
The New Civil War's Black Swan may be water.

« First    « Previous    Comments 33 - 72 of 72    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions