23 replies to this topic

[mrdavex]

This article originally from NYT, but I found it on MSN talks about the concerns of development vs water conservation in CA.  A lot of coverage is dedicated to the South of 50 development and Evert Palmer and Jennifer Lane are both interviewed:

 

http://www.msn.com/e...cid=mailsignout

 

[Rich_T]

Thanks for the link.  I notice Palmer didn't mention where the water would come from to serve the new development (Measure W's "new source").  It is also assumed that "jobs" will be created by building all the houses, because "people" create growth (a nice platitude).  But will the number of new jobs create a net gain or net loss in the jobs-to-residents ratio, once all the new people have moved in, and the new jobs have been created?  One cannot say.  All we know for sure is that it will take lots of water that otherwise could be used as a reserve for our existing population plus smaller growth.

[ducky]

Thanks for posting this link.

[bordercolliefan]

I think the article makes our pro-development city leaders look clueless and irresponsible.

In addition to the water problem, what about the traffic? 50 was a mess this morning between Iron Point (with a long wait for the metering light) and Folsom Blvd., and it took nearly an hour to drive to Midtown. I can't imagine adding tens of thousands of people is going to help that situation.

[Robert Gary]

As the article notes, this is made possible because we don't use our water allocation. We over conserved. Now that we have a new normal established the balance of water can be dedicated S50. Keep those water catching buckets in the shower.

-Robert

[ducky]

As the article notes, this is made possible because we don't use our water allocation. We over conserved. Now that we have a new normal established the balance of water can be dedicated S50. Keep those water catching buckets in the shower.

-Robert

 

But is it really "possible"?  I think what it means is when 50 is built out we will find out what happens when the barge doesn't even help.

It will be a costly fix.

[Rich_T]

As the article notes, this is made possible because we don't use our water allocation. We over conserved. Now that we have a new normal established the balance of water can be dedicated S50. Keep those water catching buckets in the shower.

-Robert

 

Whether used or not, the previously allocated water level is the opposite of "a new source".

[tony]

A related article in the Bee this morning about an academic study done at the University of Illinois on smart growth and specifically the SACOG Blueprint. It  used Folsom's S50 as an example of the volunteer nature of the Blueprint failing because local agencies are not all following the principals and are continuing green field development that is inconsistent with the Bluepint.

[ducky]

A related article in the Bee this morning about an academic study done at the University of Illinois on smart growth and specifically the SACOG Blueprint. It  used Folsom's S50 as an example of the volunteer nature of the Blueprint failing because local agencies are not all following the principals and are continuing green field development that is inconsistent with the Bluepint.

 

It says Folsom should be rebuilding its aging closer-in suburbs first.   Does that mean mowing down existing affordable neighborhoods?  How exactly do they do that?

I don't want to live in an urban environment.

[2 Aces]

I think the article makes our pro-development city leaders look clueless and irresponsible.

They are banking on the possibility of a huge El Nino that many meteorologists are predicting this fall. They better hope they're right. And if they are, fine. Then all the talk about drought, no water, dead lawns, painted grass, and fake/artificial grass, etc, can go on the back burner.

[john]

I personally don't understand why graywater sprinklers aren't a priority for the city. We can be using graywater for landscaping and I'm sure it would make a sizeable dent in the water use throughout the city. Before we expand, I'd love to see the city invest in graywater systems.

[maestro]

This article originally from NYT, but I found it on MSN talks about the concerns of development vs water conservation in CA.  A lot of coverage is dedicated to the South of 50 development and Evert Palmer and Jennifer Lane are both interviewed:

 

http://www.msn.com/e...cid=mailsignout

 

 

 

 

Thank you for this.     

 

Clearly development advocates  continue to claim the water really is sufficient and the drought is just a passing fluke.    

 

Annoying that we pay a city manager to tell the lie that "water rights"  give, and will continue to give,   developments the water  --    even though this water DOES NOT EXIST.

Pro-rapid-growth offers opinions instead of science, and inaccuracies that will not fill the taps.

 

(Edited Cross posted content-  This is about So of 50- you have the other topic to talk about Folsom Lake) 

[Robert Gary]

I personally don't understand why graywater sprinklers aren't a priority for the city. We can be using graywater for landscaping and I'm sure it would make a sizeable dent in the water use throughout the city. Before we expand, I'd love to see the city invest in graywater systems.

Because It doesn't solve our problem. Our problem is that water evaporates on the grass vs going through our water recycling facility south of Sacramento. Grey water makes sense for SoCal because it's very expensive to ship fresh water down there. But for us it would not save any net water. Our grey water is treated and then used as fresh water downstream by farmers and cities. So we'd be watering our grass with water destination for downstream consumers either way.

-Robert

[Chad Vander Veen]

Because It doesn't solve our problem. Our problem is that water evaporates on the grass vs going through our water recycling facility south of Sacramento. Grey water makes sense for SoCal because it's very expensive to ship fresh water down there. But for us it would not save any net water. Our grey water is treated and then used as fresh water downstream by farmers and cities. So we'd be watering our grass with water destination for downstream consumers either way.

-Robert

But it's a part of the solution. I'm concerned with Folsom and the region. I'd rather ensure we use the water we have instead of sending it downstream. Like has been said (and like I said when I ran) this will be the new normal. So if we aren't using greywater we're not going to get an extra allotment. 

[Robert Gary]

But if the flow of water out our sewage treatment facility drops the state will make up the difference by increasing flow out the dam. They're trying to achieve a certain flow at the delta. Either thaT comes from our treatment plant or directly out the dam.

-Robert