Water and the southwest

[masterrig 1]

Fair enough.


Chuck

[lawrocket 3]

I think that judicial management is the worst way of doing it. The judge may only decide those matters put before her. And then when laws conflict must become the arbiter of which is more important.

This is a political question. Leaving it to judges to allocate resources will make the issues more prevalent as those on the losing end will be furious and demand a political solution, anyway.

This is a big problem. Policy makers punting to the Courts. See "gay marriage." let the Courts decide it and then pass legislation consistent and claim they did something great.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I think that judicial management is the worst way of doing it. The judge may only decide those matters put before her. And then when laws conflict must become the arbiter of which is more important.

Oh, I agree. I only meant that whatever the politicians do, it will end up before the courts. I didn't mean the courts are the best way to deal with it. In fact they may be the worst; to the extent that the courts rely on precedent they may be incapable of affecting change in a situation like this. As we discussed in another thread long ago, to the courts consistency and abiding by rules is more important than any concept of a "just outcome". If the rules (laws) say 1 guy owns all the water, and 999,999 other people have nothing, the courts will likely say "those are the rules, if you don't like it find a way to change the rules".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[masterblaster72 0]

Here's a depressing read: it's not just a California problem...

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[masterrig 1]

I see what you're saying.


Chuck

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

The researchers used NASA’s GRACE satellites to take precise measurements of the world’s groundwater aquifers. The satellites detected subtle changes in the Earth’s gravitational pull, noting where the heavier weight of water exerted a greater pull on the orbiting spacecraft. Slight changes in aquifer water levels were charted over a decade, from 2003 to 2013.

How sensitive is this fucking sensor to detect the amount of water under the ground by measuring gravity? Or is it bullshit data?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 1,623]

Anvilbrother

Quote

The researchers used NASA’s GRACE satellites to take precise measurements of the world’s groundwater aquifers. The satellites detected subtle changes in the Earth’s gravitational pull, noting where the heavier weight of water exerted a greater pull on the orbiting spacecraft. Slight changes in aquifer water levels were charted over a decade, from 2003 to 2013.

How sensitive is this fucking sensor to detect the amount of water under the ground by measuring gravity? Or is it bullshit data?

Quite sensitive enough.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

> I only meant that whatever the politicians do, it will end up before the courts.

It's already happening. Water rights going back to 1903 are now being curtailed; farmers are already filing suits against the CA resource control board. Communities in Northern California are suing water companies because they are installing more accurate meters on homes without changing the meters on industrial water users. It's going to be one big lawsuit before long.

[champu 1]

Anvilbrother

How sensitive is this fucking sensor-

Words hurt, man.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Scientists say the satellite gathered the data over 3 years ago but was unable to download the data due to daddy issues. After years of therapy the satellite finally released what was wrong with it and NASA was able to finally obtain the critical gravitational data leading to the study. A module is scheduled to be installed on the satellite containing antidepressants which should cure further issues with the instruments.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Elisha 1]

billvon

> I only meant that whatever the politicians do, it will end up before the courts.

It's already happening. Water rights going back to 1903 are now being curtailed; farmers are already filing suits against the CA resource control board. Communities in Northern California are suing water companies because they are installing more accurate meters on homes without changing the meters on industrial water users. It's going to be one big lawsuit before long.

It looks like meters on industrial users are coming soon, just not soon enough....or at least that's the vibe I get from a few articles I've read. Still....to your point, residential being picked on unfairly.

[billvon 2,400]

> Still....to your point, residential being picked on unfairly.

That's the thing. They're not even putting restrictions on anyone yet - just upgrading meters so if they have to they can better monitor water usage. But even that gets fought.

As in most such issues, the question everyone is asking themselves is "how do I get other people to use less water?"

[Andy9o8 0]

billvon

> Still....to your point, residential being picked on unfairly.

That's the thing. They're not even putting restrictions on anyone yet - just upgrading meters so if they have to they can better monitor water usage. But even that gets fought.

As in most such issues, the question everyone is asking themselves is "how do I get other people to use less water?"

Voluntary altruism is laudable, but frequently inadequate to effect the collective good.
Government cannot compel voluntary altruism.
But it can coerce collective cooperation.
Viva la revolucion.

[masterblaster72 0]

Andy9o8

Viva la revolucion.

Claro.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

> the question everyone is asking themselves is "how do I get other people to use less water?"

depends on how one is wired

I suspect about 40% of the people are asking your question

I suspect another 40% of the people are stating they'll pay for what they are using and expect the price to go up

I suspect 9% of the people are trying find a way to bring in and sell the water for profit

I suspect the last 9% are looking to sneak more for free

1% will pray for more water and probably thirst to death

1% just expect to magically get free "Obama water" - they think the first group is also pretty smart

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

>I suspect another 40% of the people are stating they'll pay for what they are using
>and expect the price to go up

Which would be stated position of the Rancho Santa Fe'ans. (at least a few of them.)

That's the fastest and easiest solution - and one that no one will touch with a ten foot pole. Price water at market cost. Have some ceiling below which water rates stay the same (so no one dies of thirst or decides to never flush their toilet again) and above that raise the rates - and use that money to improve water infrastructure.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

> Still....to your point, residential being picked on unfairly.

That's the thing. They're not even putting restrictions on anyone yet - just upgrading meters so if they have to they can better monitor water usage. But even that gets fought.

As in most such issues, the question everyone is asking themselves is "how do I get other people to use less water?"

It's going on up here. Fresno water usage dropped any about 25% over last year. And dropped the year before that, too.

But you are right. As it stands the ones on. The main defensive are the farmers. People wanting them to use less. Farmers wanting less to go to the environment. And urban areas generally wanting farming to use less

Even as a libertarian I think that privatizing water is a bad idea. It would be worse than what we have now. And that is saying plenty.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Elisha 1]

billvon

>I suspect another 40% of the people are stating they'll pay for what they are using
>and expect the price to go up

Which would be stated position of the Rancho Santa Fe'ans. (at least a few of them.)

That's the fastest and easiest solution - and one that no one will touch with a ten foot pole. Price water at market cost. Have some ceiling below which water rates stay the same (so no one dies of thirst or decides to never flush their toilet again) and above that raise the rates - and use that money to improve water infrastructure.

Dude, that's crazy talk.

[kallend 1,623]

NPR article:

www.npr.org/2015/06/25/417430662/how-a-historical-blunder-helped-create-the-water-crisis-in-the-west?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150626

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Phil1111 911]

Water... its a non issue.

"The San Diego County Water Authority has agreed to buy at least 48,000 acre-feet of water from the plant each year for about $2,000 an acre-foot. An acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, roughly enough for two families of four for a year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/business/energy-environment/a-costly-california-desalination-plant-bets-on-future-affordability.html

So $1000 a year for a family of 4. Thats 68 cents a day per person for clean potable water. It cost to treat fresh water from a river anyway.

Thats like the calculations that it takes "The thing is, nuts use a whole lot of water: it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond,"
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/almonds-nuts-crazy-stats-charts

The water goes back into the groundwater that the tree doesn't use and the tree removes CO2 and produces o2.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Water... its a non issue.

Well, that's OK then.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Again. Almonds have caught on as the crazy high water use. But they pale in comparison to cotton, alfalfa and beef. That nice glass off moo juice? That is a LOT of water that goes into making it.

Almonds do use plenty. But nobody wants to pay $6 for a Big Mac.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[coozer 0]

Plenty of places are surviving just fine on 100% desal. Gulf states for example.

sure you will have to to pay for water, but if you want free water... live in a wet state. There are plenty to choose from

If you want to live in a desert, expect to pay for water.

pretty simple.

[riggerrob 558]

Agreed cooser,

Maybe de-salination is the answer. DS is easy to install in energy-wealthy oil states, but more challenging for energy-importing states like California. Maybe the answer lies in alternative energy sources like wind, tide, solar and hydr-electric. Only the last option (HE) is adjustable to hourly consumer demand, but the other alternatives are good for de-salinating the billions of gallons needed by a state the size of California. When you are de-salinating billions of gallons of water and storing it in reservoirs the size of the State of Rhode Island, precise time of day ... or time of month ... or time of year is insignificant.
I remember the Tehachapi wind turbine farm over-looking the old DZ at California City (Mojave Desert of California) ... every time they cranked up those wind turbines, with da got too gusty to jump, so POPS sipped iced tea while watching the young bucks drag through cactus.
Hah!
Hah!

On another note, I wonder why Calfornia builds their water reservoirs so shallow (e.g. the reservoirs north and east of Perris Valley). Shallow reservoirs risk re-salivation by evaporation. If they dug out another hundred feet of soil, they could vastly increase storage capacity while not increasing surface area. Digging out soil is not cheap, but it is decent agricultural soil that could be spread on nearby farms to rejuvenate them.
Another solution is to float hundreds of rafts (on reservoirs) to reduce surface area.
If those rafts held solar panels, they could pay pumping costs with zero load on the state grid.
There I go again .... asking embarrassing questions.

[lawrocket 3]

Yet another thing about Cali. We don't have to be an energy importing state. We have oil. Water. Wind. Sunlight. Natural gas. And a remarkable aversion to exploit it. We could have more and deeper reservoirs. Nope. Gotta maintain river levels. We could use hydroelectric power from those reservoirs. No. Same problem.

How about wind farms? No. Unsightly and kills a lot of critters.

Solar power? No. Still too expensive and intensive.

Nuclear power? Hahaha!

We have a vast ocean right there. It would take 30 years just to get a pipeline built from the ocean to the inland. It's how it works here.

My wife is hotter than your wife.