27 replies to this topic

[ducky]

 

I know Quick Quack claims to do so.  Commercial car washes actually use much less water than hand washing it yourself, especially if you don't have a trigger nozzle at the end of the hose.  At my workplace, they now have an onsite "wash while you work" service that says they use only 0.5 gal per car.  However, I disagree with the article that car washing is cheap.  A decent wash here in town costs at least $15, so that's why many folks op to do them at home.  

 

If I can just add to your reasons that I've taken my car through some of those cheaper gas station washes and my car didn't look any cleaner afterwards.  So now I'm out about $7 and still need to wash my car at home.

[mrdavex]

 

If I can just add to your reasons that I've taken my car through some of those cheaper gas station washes and my car didn't look any cleaner afterwards.  So now I'm out about $7 and still need to wash my car at home.

 

Yeah, it seems like any wash less than $10 is just a quick spray and doesn't wash off much.  

[Rich_T]

Here's my take.  If the figures I have read in articles are correct, then 80% of California's water usage is for agriculture, 10% is for other business, and 10% is for residential use (of which I would imagine 70% or more is in dry Southern California).  If so, then 3% of California's water usage is from Northern California residential usage, and most of that is in the SF Bay Area including Silicon Valley.  The Sacramento region's residents are probably using less than 1% of California's water.  As such, our water restrictions, while in the proper spirit, are not going to amount to any noticeable difference.

 

Therefore, the only real solutions are either (1) get more water via desalinization projects (with some environmental downside), or (2) vastly reduce California's agriculture, and move it to places that have more water.  After all, isn't that the economic concept of "comparative advantage"?  The downside is that a key strategic item (food) will have to be imported, with (maybe) a higher consumer cost.  But otherwise the government is just propping up an unviable industry that sucks water away from residents, and which has also imported a huge Mexican population with associated costs that have been externalized to California residents.  However, if solution (1) can be made effective, then we wouldn't need to consider (2).

 

In any case, whether we take short or long showers is not going to move the needle.

 

I'd like to read what some water experts among us have to say on this topic.

[AMETHYST PRODUCTIVITY]

I agree with almost all of this except the golf courses. If we close the golf courses, tons of low income jobs will be lost. Maintenance, ground crew, starters, bus boys, cooks, waiters, pro shop workers, admin staff, marketing, accounting. 

 

That being said, there DOES need to be a requirement that reclaimed/grey water is being used and they pay a proper rate for water. 

[mrdavex]

Rich,

 

I'm not a Water Expert, but definitely an enthusiast.  You are correct that 80% of our water is being used for agriculture.  It is a $45B annual industry for the state (http://sacramento.cb...revenue-record/).  Some crops require more water than others (http://www.arb.ca.go...tain/hanson.pdf), particularly alfalfa, tree fruits and nuts, rice, corn, and cotton.  According to the linked presentation, alfalfa uses way more water than everything else, and 70% of it is used to feed dairy cattle.  So we are using a lot of water to keep our cows happy.  Also, many farms still use inefficient irrigation methods (i.e. flooding fields, sprinklers) instead of highly-efficient drip.  The problem is that many of these water-hungry crops are barely profitable for farmers and already receive many government subsidies.  

 

A very good read about the West Coast's water struggles is the book Cadillac Desert by the late Marc Reisner. (http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0140178244).  I haven't read the book in its entirety, but the main premise he argues is that residential water usage pales in comparison to agricultural use, and farmers have taken advantage of really low water prices, which have been federal taxpayer subsidized via the California Water Project and Central Valley Project, and have little incentive to conserve.  Whereas, urban users pay a higher price per acre foot of water, and have a greater conservation incentive.

 

IMHO, if we want to conserve water and maintain CA's ag industry, farmers should follow free-market economics and instead of planting the low-margin, water-hungry crops in dry regions, replace them with less-thirsty and/or higher-profitable crops such as vineyards, and also upgrade to drip irrigation.  The thirstier crops should be reserved for coastal regions.  It may also involve reducing government subsidies for corn, cotton, meat, and dairy.

 

.  

Here's my take.  If the figures I have read in articles are correct, then 80% of California's water usage is for agriculture, 10% is for other business, and 10% is for residential use (of which I would imagine 70% or more is in dry Southern California).  If so, then 3% of California's water usage is from Northern California residential usage, and most of that is in the SF Bay Area including Silicon Valley.  The Sacramento region's residents are probably using less than 1% of California's water.  As such, our water restrictions, while in the proper spirit, are not going to amount to any noticeable difference.

 

Therefore, the only real solutions are either (1) get more water via desalinization projects (with some environmental downside), or (2) vastly reduce California's agriculture, and move it to places that have more water.  After all, isn't that the economic concept of "comparitive advantage"?  The downside is that a key strategic item (food) will have to be imported, with (maybe) a higher consumer cost.  But otherwise the government is just propping up an unviable industry that sucks water away from residents, and which has also imported a huge Mexican population with associated costs that have been externalized to California residents.  However, if solution (1) can be made effective, then we wouldn't need to consider (2).

 

In any case, whether we take short or long showers is not going to move the needle.

 

I'd like to read what some water experts among us have to say on this topic.

[Rich_T]

Rich,

 

I'm not a Water Expert, but definitely an enthusiast.  You are correct that 80% of our water is being used for agriculture.  It is a $45B annual industry for the state (http://sacramento.cb...revenue-record/).  Some crops require more water than others (http://www.arb.ca.go...tain/hanson.pdf), particularly alfalfa, tree fruits and nuts, rice, corn, and cotton.  According to the linked presentation, alfalfa uses way more water than everything else, and 70% of it is used to feed dairy cattle.  So we are using a lot of water to keep our cows happy.  Also, many farms still use inefficient irrigation methods (i.e. flooding fields, sprinklers) instead of highly-efficient drip.  The problem is that many of these water-hungry crops are barely profitable for farmers and already receive many government subsidies.  

 

A very good read about the West Coast's water struggles is the book Cadillac Desert by the late Marc Reisner. (http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0140178244).  I haven't read the book in its entirety, but the main premise he argues is that residential water usage pales in comparison to agricultural use, and farmers have taken advantage of really low water prices, which have been federal taxpayer subsidized via the California Water Project and Central Valley Project, and have little incentive to conserve.  Whereas, urban users pay a higher price per acre foot of water, and have a greater conservation incentive.

 

IMHO, if we want to conserve water and maintain CA's ag industry, farmers should follow free-market economics and instead of planting the low-margin, water-hungry crops in dry regions, replace them with less-thirsty and/or higher-profitable crops such as vineyards, and also upgrade to drip irrigation.  The thirstier crops should be reserved for coastal regions.  It may also involve reducing government subsidies for corn, cotton, meat, and dairy.

 

.  

 

Thanks.  All of that is eminently sensible, and one can only marvel at (or curse) the political forces that get in the way of such a sensible approach.

[ducky]

A lot of that alfalfa is exported to China for their booming dairy industry.  So it's not all going for those California happy cows.

Same with almonds, water-hungry and very lucrative to export.

 

Kind of answers the question I mutter to myself when in the produce aisle at the store: "Why are the prices so high?  Don't we grow this stuff here?"

[kcrides99]

As a southern California import (raised there til I was 20), the biggest surprise to me upon moving to Sacramento was the lack of reclaimed water being used. Before I left socal, it seemed like every City, park, golf course, school, etc was upgrading to the purple piped reclaimed water.

 

I guess the reason is that a big chunk of our sewer is sent to Elk Grove, treated, and dumped into the Sacramento River... All that ends up going down south... WHY are we sending it south? Why are we not treating it locally to be used as irrigation?

 

I am not saying I disagree with anything stated previously, but I am amazed we don't see more of this here.

 

Also, at least where I grew up in socal you never saw water running down the gutters during the summer, which seems pretty prevalent here locally...

 

There is no easy solution for water. Desal is very energy intensive so I do not think it is sustainable.

 

I would second the comment about the great read, Cadillac Desert. This should be mandatory reading for every resident in California. Very informative on the history of water grabs in the state... even talks about past concepts of piping water from the Columbia River (Oregon) to provide water here.

[4thgenFolsomite]

I see two issues here: the big long term picture and the critical close to home short term picture.

 

long term:  agriculture will need to transition to less water intensive farming practices.  traveling in Baja, I have seen extensive fields of drip irrigated vegetables.  if they can do it in Baja, they can do it here.  This may or may not work with tree crops.  as for golf courses, I wonder just how much water they use in the bigger scheme of things.  if its minimal and they use reclaimed water, then maybe in some way they are also supplying habitat to struggling native species.  I often see wild life around golf courses.  and conversely is it possible to spray them green and people golf on dry or artificial turf? 

 

short term:  some experts are saying that domestic tap water rationing could happen next year if the drought continues.  Some towns in the central valley are already to this stage.  imagine turning on the tap and nothing comes out.  if we don't conserve now, we are both foolish and selfish. 

[mrdavex]

A few weeks ago I asked an acquaintance who works at the SRCSD about this.  Per water agreements, they are legally bound to send a certain percentage (can't remember the #) of their discharge back into the river to supply downstream users.  But there is another % they are allowed to reuse.  Some is already used today, but there are bigger plans for increased ruse opportunities: https://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files/u8/WRA-Chapter-Meeting_%20SRCSD_JRR.pdf 

 

I would like to see Folsom recycle more of its water locally, but it would take a large amount of capital costs to build a plant, translating into higher sewer rates for all of us.  Instead, how about imposing a fee on all the S50 development to build a pipeline to the SRCSD plant to get the recycled water back up here?  Wishful thinking with this current City Council of course.

 

 

 

I guess the reason is that a big chunk of our sewer is sent to Elk Grove, treated, and dumped into the Sacramento River... All that ends up going down south... WHY are we sending it south? Why are we not treating it locally to be used as irrigation?

 

 

[mrdavex]

Many golf courses use computerized irrigation systems that monitor weather and soil moisture in real-time, and apply just the right amount of water needed (no watering on rainy days), plus can detect broken pipes or sprinklers.  So even though we like to blame golf courses, I do suspect they use less water per landscaped acre than a landscaped acre of a suburban house.  There are still many opportunities for them to conserve though.  Maybe instead of water hazards, they can convert them to ball pits using old tennis and golf balls?

  as for golf courses, I wonder just how much water they use in the bigger scheme of things.  if its minimal and they use reclaimed water, then maybe in some way they are also supplying habitat to struggling native species.  I often see wild life around golf courses.  and conversely is it possible to spray them green and people golf on dry or artificial turf? 

 

[cw68]

I have this goofball neighbor that washes down his patio, side of his house, and drive way every weekend, With a power spray washer. He even sprays his trees to clean them or something. I guess people are too lazy these days to use a broom.

By spraying the trees he might be trying to keep them from setting fruit. I had one of those horrible "fruitless" plum trees (that actually have scores of those staining little plums) over my driveway, which made a huge mess and tracked smooshed fruit into the house. When the tree is blossoming and the blossoms are just about done, if you knock them off with a blast of water they won't set fruit.

If he does it all year, who knows what he's thinking!

[Chad Vander Veen]

Desalinization plants are awfully expensive and they need energy to operate so you don't just get clean water for free. They also produce quite a bit of waste and that has to go someplace. One of these plants in San Diego took 15 years to build, cost billions, and it only supplies enough water for about 20,000 homes and the algae waste they are dumping back into the ocean is creating some issues. 

 

The San Diego desalination plant is not completed yet. It won't be operational until 2016 but will produce about 50 million gallons of water every day - ultimately about 7-10 percent of the entire county's water needs. I wrote an article about the facility last year. If you want to know more facts about it, check out the link. http://www.govtech.c...California.html