california going dry

House Repair Talk

Help Support House Repair Talk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Interesting read and I have read similar before. That brings up the question of why we still haven't made better retention and detention systems along with pipelines from places that flood.
 
oh oh !! this is not good.

As water dwindles, lawmakers seek access to confidential well logs

In California, well completion reports are considered confidential under a 64-year-old state law. A hearing will consider new legislation that would make these well logs public.
 
Three months ago it was all talk about the drought and how we are going to run out of water.

This months talk is rates are going up because people conserved water.

Water districts are having to find ways to get rid of excess water because people have not used enough.

I haven't heard the word drought in the news in well over a month.

All news is talking about El Niño and flooding and how we need to be prepared to get more water than we have gotten in decades.

Snow pack is already well over double where we were a year ago.

What I gather from all this is that the word drought was used to make money now and in the future. All these government rate hikes are not ever going away.
 
The only words that will describe it all and you are going to be hearing them every day are (Manmade climate change.)
 
Nobody worried until the drought happened and then the politicians did the only thing they know how to do; throw money at it. And yup, you won't see that money come back.
It's probably a good idea to assume the drought/rain cycle will be repeated more often now, so perhaps getting ready for the next drought isn't crazy.
And I'm sure there are plenty of thirsty small towns downstream just waiting for a chance to fill their reservoirs also.
 
It's fine to knock the government for stuff we don't like but let's get real, who should pay for it and why.
!00 years ago all water was coming from the aquifers and that is a limited supply that will never recover to old levels
So in order to fill the bottom half of that state with people you needed water from the north and each city made commitments on how much they would pay for their share.
Take that total amount that has to be paid and the expence of operating the system and devide that by the volume of water used and you have a price to charge.
When you have a shortage of water, all the costs stay the same and you still need the money to operate the system, price has to go up.
So if cutbacks are working and everyone uses less water and the bills are the same, how would you suggest they pay for that.
It would cost millions for each city to start capturing there own water and the payment for the reserves in the north will still have to be made, who wants to pay for that extra.
 
I agree to a point. If we all have to cut back than the districts should also have to cut back. They play games with the money. LADWP Donates a quarter billion dollars a year to the city of LA of so called excess funds at the same time they are screaming they are a quarter billion short. Instead of stopping the donations of excess funds they raise rates so they ccan keep giving away excess.

Water districts don't cut back on anything. Yorba Linda Water is paying their spokesperson almost 200k a year. A position that is not needed or could be cut for the time being.

They are selling their excess water to other government agencies, key word "excess". Supposedly water we don't have.

San Diego built up their infrastructure many years ago and are not in a shortage, state says they have to cut back and in turn charge more. They come on the news pleading with the state to not require cuts in their area because they have too much water. state say "Mandatory"

I don't have a problem with conserving or paying more for a service but especially here in California it is all politics and more ways for government to get more money out of the people. They will and have not done anything on their part to actually help with the problem at hand.
 
It's fine to knock the government for stuff we don't like but let's get real, who should pay for it and why.
!00 years ago all water was coming from the aquifers and that is a limited supply that will never recover to old levels
So in order to fill the bottom half of that state with people you needed water from the north and each city made commitments on how much they would pay for their share.
Take that total amount that has to be paid and the expence of operating the system and devide that by the volume of water used and you have a price to charge.
When you have a shortage of water, all the costs stay the same and you still need the money to operate the system, price has to go up.
So if cutbacks are working and everyone uses less water and the bills are the same, how would you suggest they pay for that.
It would cost millions for each city to start capturing there own water and the payment for the reserves in the north will still have to be made, who wants to pay for that extra.

Neal you are starting to sound like a capitalist man. Way to go. The concept of supply and demand in a nutshell. The only thing the government leaves out of the equation is competition. Now if we could only have two or three governments all running and maintaining the water supply there would be an incentive for one of them to figure out a better way and get more of the market and lower prices. It would be more like the post office and fedx and ups only for water. Nothing controls demand like prices can. :)
 
Neal you are starting to sound like a capitalist man. Way to go. The concept of supply and demand in a nutshell. The only thing the government leaves out of the equation is competition. Now if we could only have two or three governments all running and maintaining the water supply there would be an incentive for one of them to figure out a better way and get more of the market and lower prices. It would be more like the post office and fedx and ups only for water. Nothing controls demand like prices can. :)

I would argue with that with just the immagination.
Immagine the oil companies not selling oil because there is a shortage of product and it will run out in a few months. They would pump baby pump and then take their money and file bankruptcy and leave customers high and dry.

Unless someone has sat in on city council meetings or water board or who ever makes the decissions and listen to the comments and arguements, it is just not fair to just blame them. And if someone has a better idea they should go and talk to those people.
I can immagine some company saying I can mine the water on my land and sell it. That's not hard to immagine as it is happening in your country now.
Aquifers are thousands of years old and when depleted will lose a % of capacity if you tried to refill them and the cost of re-filling will be higher than the cost of pumping the water out. Do you think those companies will re-fill the aquifer, dream on.
 
I have sat in on meetings and work with districts on a daily basis.

I would be ok with the practices except the fact that if someone is not getting paid off nothing happens. We don't live in a society where we try and find the best and most cost effective way of doing business anymore. We have started so many programs and passed so much regulation that nothing can get done in a cost effective way. If we do try and do something to help the population than there is a group somewhere that will fight it until it just not worth doing anymore.

California is especially bad with this.
 
That's not new, look at how many people died when the dam broke in San fransico or who made the money on electricity when they did get their dam.
But as voters it is up to us to figure out what is really going on and then choose the right people to vote for, either party. Or up here we have a multitude of parties to choose from:confused:
As an permintent member of the undecided I can tell you there is no good info to be had by talking to a member of any party.
 
I can agree with that. They are all corrupt in their own way. It's always a vote of the lesser evil.
 
Neal you are starting to sound like a capitalist man. Way to go. The concept of supply and demand in a nutshell. The only thing the government leaves out of the equation is competition. Now if we could only have two or three governments all running and maintaining the water supply there would be an incentive for one of them to figure out a better way and get more of the market and lower prices. It would be more like the post office and fedx and ups only for water. Nothing controls demand like prices can. :)

"supply & demand in a nutshell". Exactly right, but can you imagine when the poor can't afford water - a life essential? If you think the oil wars are bad, wait until the water wars begin.
 
"supply & demand in a nutshell". Exactly right, but can you imagine when the poor can't afford water - a life essential? If you think the oil wars are bad, wait until the water wars begin.

That war has already started with the amount of water used for fracking and tailing ponds breaking thru over built dams and oil pipes breaking. Companies do a good job of regulating themselves. Let's get rid of unions so no one would dare talk and get rid of those nasty regulations and codes.
 
71% of the earth surface is water and 96% of the water is polluted and undrinkable with salt. Man didn’t pollute this water the planet did it on its own. The planet also has an amazing built in water purification process. There are places on the planet that are already devoid of water and have been for 1000’s of years and there are other locations that have had an abundance of water and have for 1000’s of years. When people move to places without water and have never had water it becomes a problem of transportation of water and is it logical to do it or not. Southern states that have the potential for amazing agriculture given water make an excellent case for transporting water for such. Some population has to be in such an area to support the agriculture but the rest are there causing a demand without any benefit. Supply and demand is not in place to cause hardships it is in place to self-regulate. It is a manmade concept that is proven to work if it is not tampered with.

As a kid we lived in the country and water had an associated cost to it. If you were on a well you had to pay for electricity to pump it if you lived in the township you had a meter and paid by the gallon. The city had an old system where government provided the water and sure you paid for it if you used it or not thru taxes. I would go to my aunt’s house in the city and ask my dad why their toilet ran all the time. He told me because my uncle was too cheap and lazy to replace the flapper that had been leaking for 10 years, and had no reason to because he didn’t pay for water. The people in the city were allowed to water their grass every other day depending on odd or even house numbers and they would stand out there for hours spraying water from a hose washing the sidewalk and driveway. We never watered our grass in the country. I asked my dad wasn’t that a waste of water and he said not really they pump it out of lake Erie and it runs down the storm drains back to lake Erie, but it is a waste of coal to make electricity to pump the water to the houses.
The really amazing thing that happened was the city started running out of money, (They now have ran out of money) but they started to then and made a water authority and they figured out a way to put meters in each house and pay by supply and demand. The next week my uncle got off the couch and fixed the toilet and driveways and sidewalks started getting dirty. I don’t remember not taking a bath or poor people not getting a drink of water. People still watered their flowers and the grass grew some roots and the rain kept it alive.
 
People will waste water no doubt whether they just live in a house or run big business, but as you stated there is a limit to usable water and it has to be used wizely. Cost does not alway change demand, you throw in cost benifet or just greed, during the shortage in California, there was areas that used moire water on their lawns, because they could (afford) it.
These are good reasons for good governess, it is up to you to find the right people to find that balance.

Another example of business not looking after business, Why is that some one has tell businesses how may washrooms to put in. Find a city that doesn't demand port-a-johns on construction sites and you won't see any.
 
Back
Top