Level 2 drought conditions declared

[MattyB]

I heard on the news last night that Metropolitan Water District is declaring a level 2 drought condition. This means mandatory cut backs, up to 20%, assigned watering days, and fines for violators. Going into winter this is not as bad as it could be if we were in summer, but it frustrates me that those of us who try and use it responsibly and without waste (ie drip irrigation, etc), have to suffer because most people are very wasteful with water. I still see people washing down driveways! This was specifically pointed out as a no no back when level 1 drought conditions were declared, unless there's a safety hazard or sanitary issue. People are boners! I've gotta set up a meeting with Helix Water District and try and plead my case so that they don't make me cut back 20% from last years usage. I pretty much had a completely unlandscaped acre last fall, and prior to that the house was vacant. You can't cut back 20% from nothing, ya know? And if I keep seeing CalTrans spraying water mist into the air on the side of the freeways during the middle of the day I swear my head is gonna explode.

[MattyB]

Just saw another lady washing down her driveway. She was washing away some leaves. I tried to politely tell her that we are going to be fined if we're caught doing this because of drought restrictions. She literally turned her back to me and told me to mind my own business. People are unbelieveable. This is a major reason why we're in this mess. We're gluttons.

[ariscott]

Unfortunately, most will suffer because of mistakes of few... It happens here in Australia as well. Is it worth putting rain water tanks where you are? I am not sure how much rain you actuallly get a year... I actually believe that the council probably waste more water here than the residents... and people in TOWN (with their house blocks) waste more water than people in rural area on bores... (we got to pay electricity to get the bore water out... so we tend not to run the sprinkler all night). Good luck with the negotiation.... some council are hopeless....

Regards, Ari

[MattyB]

Thanks Ari,

We get approx. 9 inches of rain a year on average. Is this enough to install catchment?

[Dypsisdean]

Matty,

As a veteran of SoCal water woes, I say forget catchment, unless you want to use the better water to do your orchids, Chamaedoreas, or other salt sensitive plants. I tried it, and when you need the catchment the most is when the drought conditions have arrived, so your catchment is as dry as the reservoirs. I tried every strategy available, even setting up deals with friends in the mountains and deserts with wells, and finding out who had water trucks for lease. And setting up pool pumps to pump water from my catchment (that I would fill with a water truck) and pressurize the sprinklers. And gray water.

The only thing I found that worked was to use 20% more water than I really needed. Then when I was told to cut back, I had enough. Sure it cost a little more, but if you have a lot of 20 yr. old valuable plants, trying to skimp on water is not the best method to protect your investment. Skimp elsewhere, but not on water.

As you know, I eventually decided on another strategy --- not growing water loving palms in a desert.

[MattyB]

Well I was assured by Helix Water District that they would deal with me differently due to my circumstances. I told them last year that I would start using a crap load of water if they were gonna use that as the gauge and they said not to do that and they would work with me. Jen is confident that they'll keep their word. Me, not so much.

[Walter John]

Just saw another lady washing down her driveway. She was washing away some leaves. I tried to politely tell her that we are going to be fined if we're caught doing this because of drought restrictions. She literally turned her back to me and told me to mind my own business. People are unbelieveable. This is a major reason why we're in this mess. We're gluttons.

This too Matty has been one of my pet hates way before the water restrictions even came in here. There was a lady across the road from my place who did this and I did it differently than you because I was so irate at seeing it happen week in week out, one day I lost it and I just yelled from my front yard "Stop wasting water for F#$@s sake". My wife didn't think it was the best method of recommending she considers cutting back on the concrete driveway washing, but I felt better about it. Not long after that water restrictions did come in and she still hosed her driveway once or twice before ceasing this pompous action.

How do you feel about blower vacs ? another pet hate of mine, yuppy w#%$#ers too lazy to use a broom or rake.

[_Keith]

Just saw another lady washing down her driveway. She was washing away some leaves. I tried to politely tell her that we are going to be fined if we're caught doing this because of drought restrictions. She literally turned her back to me and told me to mind my own business. People are unbelieveable. This is a major reason why we're in this mess. We're gluttons.

This too Matty has been one of my pet hates way before the water restrictions even came in here. There was a lady across the road from my place who did this and I did it differently than you because I was so irate at seeing it happen week in week out, one day I lost it and I just yelled from my front yard "Stop wasting water for F#$@s sake". My wife didn't think it was the best method of recommending she considers cutting back on the concrete driveway washing, but I felt better about it. Not long after that water restrictions did come in and she still hosed her driveway once or twice before ceasing this pompous action.

How do you feel about blower vacs ? another pet hate of mine, yuppy w#%$#ers too lazy to use a broom or rake.

Matty, just report her and let the gov peeps deal with her.

Wal, agreed. Every weekend when my neighbors pull out all of the power equipment, it is impossible to enjoy the quiet and tranquility of being outside. Hell, you can't even have a decent conversation outside sometimes. It is like geez, can't we at least have a quiet Sunday evening, or something.

[Urban Rainforest]

Matty, I was just going to post the same thing but you beat me to it. I have been keeping a close eye on this for a long time not only because of my plant hobby but because of my job as a landscaper where I maintain almost 5 acres of tropical landscape! I knew this was coming and it is only partly because we are in a drought. Because enviromentalist found some endangered smelt ( baitfish) they decided to cut a full 1/3 of our water that used to come to us from up north. The other thing that I believe is behind it is because California is so in debt this will be a source of added revenue for the state. My last 2 water bills went up over $100 from the same time as last year. I have also heard that they are going to raise our water rates so high that it will force us to ration. They are talking about having water police and encouraging neighbors to nark on neighbors . Stiff fines are going to be imposed for going over your alotted water % and also fines for runoff from irrigation onto sidewalks and streets. There is no doubt we are in a drought and the last el nino seems like a distant memory.

So what are we going to do to keep our palms alive? For the last 2 years I have been bringing home tons of leaves from work and spreading them around as a thick mulch. It has definately cut down on my water useage and improved the soil. Also as I am starting to get some canopy so things are taking longer to dry out. My friend Chris is going to install 2 water tanks that not only store rain water but grey water as well. What are some other ideas to deal with this?

Another thing taking place is a movement by the "nativist" to get away from tropicals all together and go only with "Approved" drought tollerant plants. You don't believe me . A couple years ago the property management company I work for was renovating a hotel in the La Mesa area of San Diego. They wanted me to draw up some landscape plans for them. I said sure and when I went out there they handed me a list of plant names. I said what is this and they replied this is the approved plant list for commercial properties in the city of La Mesa. You can only use plants in your design from this list. The list was the boringest of the boring and I passed on the job . I'm fighting with them right now at my house as they want to cut down several plants just on the other side of my fence including my African Mahogany because they are non-native .

So how much of a water bill would you be willing to pay to keep your plants alive? Right now I am paying a little over $400 every 2 months. I went over this in my head and I think my cut off line would be about 7 or 8 hundred every 2 months max although I'm sure my wifes number would be alot lower. In a worst case scenario if you could not afford to keep your plants alive how many of you love this hobby enough to just $hit can everything and move to... oh I don't know...Hawaii . These are things I think about...ALOT! This is a very cutting edge and interesting topic so I hope alot of people with some ideas share them with us. Especially you ozzies and others who have already been through this. Lets all do a rain dance .

Stevo

[osideterry]

I probably over-watered by 10-20% this year in anticipation, and my wife just started noticing this Summer's water bills. My next fall back is THE LAWN. I have a plan for eliminating the backyard lawn entirely next year, and the front lawn the following year. This way I can significantly cut back 2-3 years in a row. That lawn is sucking down 60% of the water... maybe more.

[Urban Rainforest]

I probably over-watered by 10-20% this year in anticipation, and my wife just started noticing this Summer's water bills. My next fall back is THE LAWN. I have a plan for eliminating the backyard lawn entirely next year, and the front lawn the following year. This way I can significantly cut back 2-3 years in a row. That lawn is sucking down 60% of the water... maybe more.

Terry, I did the same thing watering more than normal this year also. That is a smart idea to remove your lawns as they use more water than anything I can think of except maybe Ravenea Rivularis .

Stevo

[ariscott]

9 inches a year? Wow... and I thought Australia was bad.

I still think grey water is a good idea. I think Wal watered with grey water... what you can do, you can water the established ones with grey water and the seedlings with town water. And since you have quite a big area to water, any water tank is a bonus... Just collect the rain from your roof and install drip system. They use less water than handwatering. Plus, keep up the mulch. I mulch at least twice a year, but in your case... probably you can get away with once a year. It is amazing how moist things stay with mulch.

Good luck, and I hope you will get resolution to the water problem. People in southern part of Australia might be able to help with more tricks. I don't have any water restriction, and if I do... (if they try to limit my bore usage), I would probably put 4 45,000L tanks in my property!! That should do it!! BTW, if they say native plants require less water, they are wrong!! They still need as much care as the exotics. I care more about my natives than my poincianna. It is just NATIVE NAZI talking....

Regards, Ari

[MattyB]

I you were to take on say 2 roommates, because these are hard times, how can they expect you to cut back on water when you're essentially doubling your house usage right there? Just an idea I'm toying with.

Mulch is a life saver! I only watered 2 times a week even during the hottest of the summer. I did not need to water more, it was still moist under the mulch. My soil has a good amount of clay to it which helps too.

[Walter John]

Yes Ari, I used "grey water" extensively to get my palms established as it was a drought happening at the same time as my palm nuttiness became apparent. This season though is a beauty, probably the best for 7 years.

For Matty and the others in that zone of no palm pardons, I would do everything possible to supplement, tanks, grey water, next door neighbours grey water, mulch a mile high, plant every aussie Livistona available, and more tanks.

[MattyB]

I do have a neighbor with water and no house built yet. Jen suggested I propose to him that I'll pay his water bill if I can use his hose. An option I guess.

[Jonathan]

Matty,

we just got our grey water system up and running and I'd highly recommend it. It's a 3 tier reedbed filter and the water comes out crystal clear.

To put some figures on it we are are a family of four - two small kids - the bath and shower are the only things connected at the moment and we are getting about 300 litres (66 gallons) a day out of it.

It dosn't sound like much - but when you add it up over a year, 109,500L or 24,500g sounds pretty good - too good to miss out on in our climate.

Or 13687.5 hours of drip irrigation at 8L per hour!

We're on tank water in a low rainfall zone: 450mm (18 inches) in a good year, 350mm in recent years. We have 45,000L of rainwater storage and havn't run out after 3 years of drought, so I'd say get lots of tanks - collect water off your roof, driveway and dog. Keep it as a reserve or for favorites...

Too many numbers....sorry!

[Fouquieria]

The only thing I found that worked was to use 20% more water than I really needed.

Agriculture uses approximately 85% of water in CA, the public at large use the rest. Even when fields are left fallow for a year or two, that corporation will still run the water tap so they won't get penalized in future. Sometimes they'll even divert the water to the corporation next door and make a little money on the side.

So...I'd run a little more than I need to too. The way the system works, it almost forces one to use more water.

[MattyB]

Well upon speaking with someone at Helix Water District I've got some clarification. I guess MWD has declared a stage 2 but Helix is still at a stage 1, voluntary 10% cut backs. They will see what winter and the spring thaw brings before going further. They still anticipate having to got to stage 2, but they are trying to find ways to do it without doing the % cut back, because that penalizes people who are already conserving. They are talking about implementing a "super saver" low usage rate and then a tiered rate structure for the more water you use. Another thing they're thinking of doing is: they'll go out to your property and do an assessment of the lot size, plant material, bathrooms, etc... and come up with a budget for you. If you exceed the budget then you're considered to be wasteful and then you get fined. Sounds fair to me. Better than % cut backs. Also, from what I'm hearing, drip irrigation users will be exempt from a lot of the restricted watering days and times (ie. 1 day a week for 10 minutes only for a stage 2 drought). So we've got a little time for now. But again, it's probably not people like us who are causing the problem on the consumption end. We may use a good deal of water but I'm sure most of us aren't wasteful. The water should be free to garden freaks, yeah?

[ariscott]

You'd better get planting then... before they do the assessment... The more you have on the ground, the more likely they give you more water...

Regards, Ari

[tropicalb]

the saddest part about all this matty is the fact that i have done nothing BUT conserve water for the last 5 years around my home. I have no lawn in the front or back yard, i have cut all my trees down, and i have my water bill down to less than $60 per month. i cannot possibly conserve more than that. Yet folks like me who conserve the most will be the first to be hit with fines or larger water bills for being "wasteful" if we get a hot spell and i have to use more water for my plants.

i refuse to play the "use 20% more than you need" game, as i feel:

#1. its flat hypocritical to do it if you truly want to conserve water.

#2. people who do that are compounding the problem, rather than helping.

the part that pisses me off the MOST about this whole issue is the fact that when people start to use less water in the very near future and the water district STILL asks for MORE cuts in usage, you'll get this letter in the mail from the good folks at your water district:

Due to the fact that we are not selling enough water, we are going to have to raise your rates, as the current rates are not enough to cover the cost of maintenance and delivery.

[Dypsisdean]

i refuse to play the "use 20% more than you need" game, as i feel:

#1. its flat hypocritical to do it if you truly want to conserve water.

#2. people who do that are compounding the problem, rather than helping.

I could never understand the conserve mentality in SoCal. First, as you've already learned, those that conserve are the ones who end up getting penalized the most during droughts. And secondly, it seemed like lunacy for me to conserve, so they can build 10,000 more homes that use the water I "saved."

[Tad]

That sucks, I will never complain about my water district charging me 40 dollars a year for a yard contract again!!

even in drought stage I still have enough acre feet of water to get by!

[tropicalb]

I could never understand the conserve mentality in SoCal. First, as you've already learned, those that conserve are the ones who end up getting penalized the most during droughts. And secondly, it seemed like lunacy for me to conserve, so they can build 10,000 more homes that use the water I "saved."

They build (and will continue to build) those homes in stage 3 + drought conditions....and make no apology for doing it. And local governments continue to issue building permits. Now THAT is lunacy.

To make an effort (which by the way is more than most folks do) to conserve water when you're in drought conditions seems commendable to me. Now am I going to take it to the point where my plants die after all i've done to conserve?

nope!

Edited November 15, 2008 by tropicalb

[gsn]

i refuse to play the "use 20% more than you need" game, as i feel:

#1. its flat hypocritical to do it if you truly want to conserve water.

#2. people who do that are compounding the problem, rather than helping.

I could never understand the conserve mentality in SoCal. First, as you've already learned, those that conserve are the ones who end up getting penalized the most during droughts. And secondly, it seemed like lunacy for me to conserve, so they can build 10,000 more homes that use the water I "saved."

I agree with tropicalb about water conservation.

If you take the politics out of it,ie: the water boards, a suggestion, maybe they/you (as in citizens), NEED to come up with a different way to manage water, so as not to penalize the people who actually conserve. As I don't think it is fair to penalize the people who actually try to not waste water.

But the bottom line is, using/wasting 20 percent more water than you would normally use/need, so you have enough if they cut your water usuage to meet your needs, in my opinion is no different than the person who wastes water washing down their driveway.

Those 10,000 houses are are going to be built whether you SAVE water or not, and after those 10,000 houses are built ,there will be 10,000 more after that,and so on and so on!

Imagine if all those tens of thousands of households had the same mentality,I'm not going to conserve, because your just going to build more houses that will use the water I SAVED?

You don't have to look very far down the road to see that water,will be in even shorter supply, even in non drought conditions,than it is today!

One other point I don't think water should just be conserved durning drought conditions.Drought conditions come about, happen for two reasons. Obviously not enough rainfall/snowmelt,and people depleting the water reserves faster by using to much water!

And like tropicalb, no I am not going to let my plants die, but I do try to conserve water as much as possible even if it doesn't make a difference,but if everyone did IT would make a difference!

Rant over

Edited November 15, 2008 by gsn

[Dypsisdean]

Unless you were born and raised in SoCal you can't appreciate the mismanagement of the growth and water situation, and the futility of brainwashing the homeowners into believing that it's honorable, and a collective duty to take short showers and use full washer loads.

You build a house as a young man, and they talk you into buying a large water meter and encourage you to landscape, and you pay your meager bill to an irrigation district. You plant your garden and cultivate it for 30 years. Then they change to a water district, build a few million homes, jack up the rates, cut back your water, and tell you to conserve. If they can't manage what used to be an abundant California resource, and continue to sell you what they lead you to believe they could deliver, that is bad business.

But to lean on the 15% of the water users to conserve that have homes and gardens, while the other 85% of the water is used to grow crops isn't fair. Especially when you see rainbirds spewing water at 1/20th the cost into the dry hot desert air. And water flowing and leaking through hundreds of miles of irrigation ditches in the hot sun. They say that those water rights were purchased many years ago. But what about the homeowner who started buying water 30 years ago with an implied agreement?

It's just big business and politics screwing the little guy again. And they play the guilty card if you don't swallow their propoganda that it's your obligation to sacrifice for the good of society, while the real power brokers (and water users) continue to wheel and deal behind closed doors.

[tropicalb]

Agriculture in Southern California (according to them) use 45% of the available water supply (not the 85% you quote, again, according to them), at a much lower cost than what residential users pay (and that too is ending soon, at least in the San Diego area....lower ag water rates are soon to be a thing of the past).

I don't need to tell you the reason why ag has always paid less for water dean.....do you want me to have to pay a LOT more for my veggies?

The necessity for water conservation is not just "propaganda", and those who choose to conserve to help the situation are not "brainwashed"....sheesh....gimme a little more credit than that please!

Water is no longer in abundant supply (and yes, i'll agree that growth mismanagement and politics has played a major role), and ag users are getting hit just as hard as the residential consumer as of late. When you come back to the mainland, drive out to Fallbrook and have a look at all the stumped avo trees, as well as all the empty greenhouses if you don't believe me.

p.s. qualifier: i was born and raised (well, for the largest part of my life) in Southern California.

Edited November 16, 2008 by tropicalb

[Dypsisdean]

Burt,

Much too complicated a subject to be accurate with every point, but we do agree on one. The problem has been mismanagement, and that has hurt everyone. Just one example --- If projections showed the water districts that they wouldn't have enough water to sell in 10-15 years, then they shouldn't have continued to sell and install ag water meters to all those orchards in Fallbrook. The priority should have been to take care of existing customers first.

You mention "Water is no longer in abundant supply." May I remind you that the supply of water has increased. There is more water in California now than 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Supply is not the issue. Allowing demand to outstrip supply is the problem. Conservation may help, but it will do nothing to solve the real problem.

To be clearer. I think residential homes use only about 15%. (Maybe that's more today) Agriculture, industry, recreation (golf courses, etc.) hotels, roadway landscaping, etc. use the rest. But (for the sake of this discussion) if every residential homeowner conserved 10% of the homeowner's 15% slice of the water pie, a whopping 1.5% would be saved state wide. So to make people feel obligated and guilty because they are not willing to conserve, or gripe about a statistically negligible savings is akin to brainwashing.

Now, I am not against conservation. But to single out a statistically minor factor of the overall equation is a ploy of misdirection. I just refuse to feel guilty about giving my California garden a good overnight drenching every few months to wash all the accumulated salts out of the soil.

[tropicalb]

as far as 1.5% being statistically insignificant, people refinance their mortgages to save less.....

we are agreed on the mismanagement of resources for sure though....suffice it to say:

the current situation sucks, and there isn't much that will be done about it at this point short of voluntary or forced conservation, then rationing and fines. I have heard that in extreme cases, the water districts are prepared to install a washer on your meter that will only allow an allotted per-day amount of water to reach your residence!

Even rainfall in biblical proportions wouldn't help that much, as this freakin' state doesn't have the good sense to build a few new reservoirs on land that they already own for cryin' out loud....i really would like to know how much water could actually be captured annually that ends up just running out to sea.

and yeah dean, i'm not gonna feel guilty about bucking the system when it comes time. I'll do what i have to to keep my plants alive...... been there, done it.

Edited November 16, 2008 by tropicalb

[Dypsisdean]

Burt,

My mission is accomplished now that you won't feel guilty trying every trick to keep your palms happy. But I don't think you should feel all that saintly by conserving a few gallons of water at your residence either. Your analogy was faulty. Shaving 1.5% off a 7.5% interest rate is a long way from saving 1.5% of a total 100% water usage.

But in any event, I will leave this discussion with the thought that if anyone really wished to help assure that there is adequate water to go around, they should get involved with their local water districts. They should find out the best way to pressure the planners for mandatory recycled water systems in all new developement, desalination plants adjacent to power plants, more reservoirs, more regeneration of ground water supplies, grey water systems in homes, etc. For the last 20 years of development they should have been laying recycled water pipes alongside every new clean water pipe. And recycled water could have been used exclusively for landscaping.

The most ludicrous aspect of the whole system is the practice of taking water from hundreds of miles away, treating it and filtering it to drinking water quality, and then using it for irrigation and flushing toilets. There is probably enough water wasted every year to water every garden in SoCal many times over. Instead they keep harping on the same mantra of drought tolerant plants, short showers, and sweeping sidewalks, when they could have their cake and eat it too. But is anyone looking 20 years ahead today??? No --- much easier to keep urging feel good conservation as the answer.

[bgl]

Very interesting discussion. And I couldn't be happier not being connected to any county or city water or sewer system. We're completely independent!

[BS Man about Palms]

Very interesting discussion. And I couldn't be happier not being connected to any county or city water or sewer system. We're completely independent!

Bo-

I thought you were gonna save a months worth of water from your place in a steamship and send it over to So Cal to save us Palmy people!

[gsn]

Unless you were born and raised in SoCal you can't appreciate the mismanagement of the growth and water situation, and the futility of brainwashing the homeowners into believing that it's honorable, and a collective duty to take short showers and use full washer loads.

Well I obviously wasn't born in So Cal, but still feel fairly confident talking about water issues,thank you! And I haven't HUGGED any trees lately!

I have been in Florida all my life except for my first six years,nearly half a century!

Floriduh is probably 2'nd only to California with regard to rampant uncontrolled DEVELOPMENT,and beleive it or not has had it's share of water issues.

Politics, Water managment districts, BIG AG (sugar,oranges,ect) and a dwindling aquafer.

Too much development ,to much agriculture, to many people,goverment not looking forward, not planning ,you can add a liteny of things that should have, or could have been done differently.

But just because it wasn't done the way one thinks it should have been done, doesn't eliminate the fact that RIGHT NOW, we don't have enough water to go around. In my mind it only makes sense to conserve what there is,not to WASTE it. And by conserve I don't mean let your plants die,but be aware of water usuage, most people aren't as Burt said. By the way we do have reclaimed water where I live for irrigation,which I agree should be mandatory for any new development,it is here in my city. Alot of things could have be done better/differently,but just because they weren't doesn't let my own responsibility for my water usuage off the hook. It doesn't mean I or others shouldn't CARE about conserving water,because THEY didn't get it right ! And if only 1.5 percent is all that is saved ,which is debatable,that is still probably, billions,if not trillions of gallons a year, not running down the drain or sewer,especially in heavily populated states like California and Florida,and that would make a difference!

Matty I hope you get enough water for your palms from the water district!

Edited November 16, 2008 by gsn

[elHoagie]

My main frustration is the point that Burt brought up. It's unfair to ask people to cut 20% from their previous usage. What if I use 5000 gallons per month, and the jackass next door uses 30000 gallons per month because he has leaky pipes, a huge lawn, takes long showers, washes his driveway twice a week, etc. So, he can still keep using 24000 gallons per month, and I can only use 4000? Just because he was more wasteful to begin with?

In particular, we only flush if there's something solid in the toilet, I spend a total of less than 10 minutes per week in the shower, wear my clothes about 3-4 times between washing them, NEVER wash my car, etc. How the hell can I reduce my usage any more than that? Even with a couple hundred palms in the ground, and probably 1000 seedlings in pots, I use less than 50% of the average household according to my water bill.

Why don't they just set an allocation, based on the number of people living in the house and the size of the lot? That way you penalize the people who are truly wasting water, and everyone can access their "fair share"...

[tropicalb]

Your analogy was faulty. Shaving 1.5% off a 7.5% interest rate is a long way from saving 1.5% of a total 100% water usage.

ummm....that was supposed to be funny dagnabit, not mathematically correct....hence the :wink wink:!

i'm dragging you back in dean;

here are the (supposed) facts, taken from the Association of California Water Agencies website (admittedly the enemy):

"Today, water efficiency efforts in California rival those found anywhere in the world. Thanks to more efficient plumbing fixtures and active conservation programs, California is saving more than 700,000 acre-feet of water per year, enough to meet the household needs of over 2 million people for a year.

Thanks to water use efficiency efforts, urban Southern California today uses about the same water it used in the 1980s – even though it’s population has grown significantly."

okay, so if you believe those figures, and given the assumption that CA's population is estimated to be a little over 38 million folks for the year 2008, that means that conservation efforts alone have provided enough water to supply residential usage for a little under 5.3% of the residents of the state...not at all an insignificant number.

right????

i'm feeling more saintly by the moment

[Dypsisdean]

OK,

I'll get dragged back in for one more.

So, conservation has saved enough for 1/20th of the population. Big Deal. Now that's better than nothing, but it's been done by limiting choices for homeowners, and with inconveniences as well. And despite getting constantly indoctrinated as to how significant and important it is, it's not the solution.

The solution is increasing storage and supply, yet you don't hear about that. How about a ten year program for a 10% increase in storage, and a goal of 10% of present supply from desalination, and another 10% from recycling. That's a solution. That would supply 1/3 more for all water usages, instead of a meager 1/20th just for residents. Don't forget that the easily tapped aspects of conservation have already been realized. The gains they may achieved in the next twenty years will be no where near the gains of the last.

My whole gripe is that the various government agencies make it sound as if it's your responsibility to sacrifice and solve the problem, when it really should be theirs to come up with some comprehensive solutions. As you said Burt, I too would like to know how much water is allowed to run into the ocean in the state of California during just one winter storm.

[Dypsisdean]

Why don't they just set an allocation, based on the number of people living in the house and the size of the lot? That way you penalize the people who are truly wasting water, and everyone can access their "fair share"...

Why don't they work harder on increasing storage and supply. If they don't it will be 20% this year, 25% next, then 30%............................

[John Case]

Dean,

You assume that the officials in California understand that the growth in California is coming, no matter what they do. However, ever since the time Jerry Brown was governor, our bureacracies have been populated with the 'Small is Beautiful' crowd. This book has been a bane on California (I had to read it in one of my Environmental Economics classes many, many years ago while I was an undergrad......and it was a required class for the degree).

Ever since then, for over 30 years, water has been an issue, pitting North vs. South, although water in California is really a West vs. East issue. All of the wetter areas are far East of the large metropolitan areas. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are all on the Pacific Coast, all of the water is in the Sierras. Water rights in this state are trampled on, water usage by agriculture has not changed for a hundred years (the by far largest user of our water resource, BTW) and the cities elect and appoint resource ignorant and conservation zealots to manage the one resource that, if removed, would kill them.

Until such time as the urban areas allow things like desalinization (we cannot do that now, because of the coastal commission), improve irrigation technology in the valley (no likely as the water costs are so low to the agribusinesses, there is no incentive for improvement), and more storage (again not likely, as our lunatic fringe in the environmental arena block even sensible development), California will continue to be water stressed.

Californians can change it, but until such time as the officials are replaced with people who have brains, we will be on the same path. Of course, if we have a large snow pack this year, everyone will forget about this preopblem until the next semi-drought.

[kahili]

Boy, does this bring back memories...for over a yr and a half, we were in a very severe drought. At one point in Nov. a yr ago, they were saying that the city of Raleigh was 90 days away from not having any drinking water. Of course, they didn't ban washing cars until early October...how stupid was that? That really pissed me off. Who the hell cares about clean cars when you can't water plants? I heard stories about people washing their cars in the garage and the water running down the driveway, so they got caught anyway. They really let things get bad before they set limits.

I dont live in the city limits and have a well, but in Jan the city council decided to stop all outside watering-for landscapers and homeowners alike. We were in the most restrictive stage., but that was the only water limits that they set-we have a large Pepsi factory somewhere around here and they use an incredible amt of water-but they had no limits-only the green industry, of which I am a part of as I grow annuals for a living. Believe it or not, I still had orders for annuals from the landscapers that Jan, but under the condition that they could be cancelled at the last minute if the water restrictions weren't lifted by May. No restaurants were given any restrictions-like mantatory paper plates etc. As it turned out, we are out of any drought, as I thought because we live too close to the Atlantic and the storms that come in as well as the storms that come up from the Gulf-but I feel for you. At least I knew ours would be short term, even though many nurseries and retail plant businesses went out of business.

but heres my suggestion. Growing, relying on water as I do, and having a well that is not the deepest, or most gallons/min., I have several 2100 gallon plastic tanks that I pay to have filled when needed (depending on where I am in the crop-and how much rain we get ) He mainly fills pools, but its clean water and its pretty cheap, and so I am wondering if you have such a way to get water delivered? There would be a setup cost of the tanks (esp if you want to sink them in the ground and/or hook them up to a gutter system on your house-which I do on a large building), a pump to get the water out of the tanks isn't much etc-but its a way to have water without worrying so much about not having it, and its a business expense for you. You sell palms, right? Even long term businesses need investments before they show returns of any kind. Call some pool businesses and ask them who delivers the water to new pools. I think that I pay $ 200/6000 gallons of water.

[Walter John]

What about being allowed to farm water on communal land like in the 14th century etc. Na, that makes too much sense and no cents for current global thinking.

[Dypsisdean]

Dean,

You assume that the officials in California understand that the growth in California is coming, no matter what they do. However, ever since the time Jerry Brown was governor, our bureacracies have been populated with the 'Small is Beautiful' crowd. This book has been a bane on California (I had to read it in one of my Environmental Economics classes many, many years ago while I was an undergrad......and it was a required class for the degree).

Ever since then, for over 30 years, water has been an issue, pitting North vs. South, although water in California is really a West vs. East issue. All of the wetter areas are far East of the large metropolitan areas. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are all on the Pacific Coast, all of the water is in the Sierras. Water rights in this state are trampled on, water usage by agriculture has not changed for a hundred years (the by far largest user of our water resource, BTW) and the cities elect and appoint resource ignorant and conservation zealots to manage the one resource that, if removed, would kill them.

Until such time as the urban areas allow things like desalinization (we cannot do that now, because of the coastal commission), improve irrigation technology in the valley (no likely as the water costs are so low to the agribusinesses, there is no incentive for improvement), and more storage (again not likely, as our lunatic fringe in the environmental arena block even sensible development), California will continue to be water stressed.

Californians can change it, but until such time as the officials are replaced with people who have brains, we will be on the same path. Of course, if we have a large snow pack this year, everyone will forget about this preopblem until the next semi-drought.

Well, there's at least one Californian who understands the issues. John recognizes where the real problems and solutions lie.

Solving the problem would require some real foresight, leadership, innovative thought, and commitment. Some things that are in short supply in Sacramento.

It's so much easier for the bureaucracies to make homeowners feel guilty that it's their fault there isn't enough water to go around. So it's the homeowner's duty and obligation to sacrifice their landscaping for the good of the State. That's Sacramento's solution.