Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John M
climber
|
|
Jul 20, 2014 - 08:16am PT
|
Chaz.. the guys are talking about bulk water delivery. Not the final product. What a city pays to get the same water as the farmer before the city then treats it.
Ken, part of that cost difference is the cost of transporting the water over the tehachapi. Delivery to the central valley is mostly by gravity. To LA involves a lot of pumping.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
Jul 20, 2014 - 09:03am PT
|
you guys gotta get past this 'politicians all evil, all stupid, all corrupt, all incompetent. Because those are the people that are going to deliver your water.
We actually want ag in California. Its good business. It just needs to be more responsibly managed to prevent over use and ultimate degradation of the land itself, aka Afghanistan or Iraq. (which can very well happen here too)
Ag water should be cheaper than residential. We should subsidize ag water, for the sake of labor if nothing else. What we should not do is subsidize ag water AND cede control of that water to the customer. Stupid idea. Fox is in the henhouse.
i take your point about the ranting against politicians on issues driven by the electorate.
but water is actually one of those issues on which the leg and governor's office have the most culpability. the wonks are the ones who deliver the water, and will continue to be. but water is frankly one area, like utility regulation, that genuinely has been corrupted by influence peddling. and if the proposition system actually could do what it is supposed to do, allow an enlightened electorate to out-maneuver and incompetent or corrupt parliament. of course, the electorate is full of incompetent and entitled folks like chaz, so it's become part of the problem.
re ag, water and subsidies: for large municipalities, the higher rates charged do not reflect end distribution. and i think that aacross the board water subsidies for ag is part of the disfunctionality.
for a start,"ag" and "farmer" cover too much ground-- khanom is a farmer. david resnick is a farmer. they're both farmers! except that resnick is a billionaire massively subsidized by the state to grow export almonds and destroy the aquifer while he does it.
in my view, we should indeed support ag, but our current system for distributing that kind of support is a disaster.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
Jul 20, 2014 - 09:16am PT
|
f you could drink ag water, then maybe you could compare its price to municipal water.
you don't know what you are talking about, at least outside of your own backyard.
municipalities have traditionally paid vastly more per acre/ft than ag users. that is before treatment cost. again, the history is thoroughly recounted in norris's book, it's written in prose accessible to a general reader, if you can type into the box for ST, you ought to be able to process at least the relevant portions of it.
there are local variations, but these are not historically significant.
the history of water mining, too, has been treated at great length and not just by norris. i've recounted parts of it in this thread. the response of federal and state governments to water mining has been basically to pretend it isn't happening, then to legalize it, and most recently, to try to hide it (the cali state leg actually passed into law,60-some ago, a bill that makes it illegal for the cdw to disclose what limited data it has on groundwater pumping).
https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/news/2014/07/06/center-scientist-slams-secrecy-state-aquifer-data
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jul 20, 2014 - 11:34am PT
|
Ken, part of that cost difference is the cost of transporting the water over the tehachapi. Delivery to the central valley is mostly by gravity. To LA involves a lot of pumping.
I think that is valid.
It does not involve treatment. MWD does offer to deliver treated water, but it costs a lot of money. The City of LA chooses to treat it themselves, and saves a bundle by doing so.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
Jul 25, 2014 - 03:08pm PT
|
Oh, darling, rub my acre feet. That'll be $110 for the right and I'll give you a deal on the left, dear.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
Jul 25, 2014 - 06:54pm PT
|
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Groundwater losses from the Colorado River basin appear massive enough to challenge long-term water supplies for the seven states and parts of Mexico that it serves, according to a new study released Thursday that used NASA satellites.
Researchers from NASA and the University of California, Irvine say their study is the first to quantify how much groundwater people in the West are using during the region's current drought.
Stephanie Castle, the study's lead author and a water resource specialist at the University of California, Irvine, called the extent of the groundwater depletion "shocking."
"We didn't realize the magnitude of how much water we actually depleted" in the West, Castle said.
Since 2004, researchers said, the Colorado River basin — the largest in the Southwest — has lost 53 million acre feet, or 17 trillion gallons, of water. That's enough to supply more than 50 million households for a year, or nearly fill Lake Mead — the nation's largest water reservoir — twice.
Three-fourths of those losses were groundwater, the study found.
Unlike reservoirs and other above-ground water, groundwater sources can become so depleted that they may never refill, Castle said. For California and other western states, the groundwater depletion is drawing down the reserves that protect consumers, farmers and ecosystems in times of drought.
"What happens if it isn't there?" Castle said during a phone interview. "That's the scary part of this analysis."
The NASA and University of California research used monthly gravity data to measure changes in water mass in the basin from December 2004 to November of last year, and used that data to track groundwater depletion.
"Combined with declining snowpack and population growth, this will likely threaten the long-term ability of the basin to meet its water-allocation commitments to the seven basin states and to Mexico, Jay Famiglietti, senior author on the study and senior water-cycle specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in a statement.
The Colorado River basin supplies water to about 40 million people and 4 million acres of farmland in seven states — California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming — as well as to people and farms in part of Mexico.
California, one of the nation's largest agricultural producers, is three years into drought. While the state has curtailed use of surface water, the state lacks a statewide system for regulating — or even measuring — groundwater.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 05:42pm PT
|
We're told the drought is bad.
So bad a guy in Santa Cruz was fined $3,000 because his toilet leaked.
http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/santa-cruz/santa-cruz-man-sloshed-with-3000-penalty-for-running-toilet/27235596#!brvqrt
So bad, LADWP has issued a list of things they want us to do to save every drop of water possible.
"Reducing water use is as simple as checking sprinkler timers, checking indoors for leaky faucets and toilets, and using a hose fitted with a shut-off nozzle when watering landscape or washing your car."
http://www.ladwpnews.com/go/doc/1475/1426279/LADWP-Reminds-Customers-to-Conserve-Water
But apparently the drought hasn't gotten bad enough for the LADWP to heed its own advice, and be vigilant with basic maintenance, like the rest of us are expected to do.
A 93 (!) year-old pipe burst, and pissed away ALL the water you, me, and everybody else here worked so f*#king hard to conserve. And then some!
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ucla-main-break-gallons-lost-20-million-20140730-story.html
We're encouraged by the LADWP to replace perfectly working toilets to conserve water, yet LADWP won't replace an old water-wasting pipe for almost a century.
LADWP should prove they can take their own advice first, before advising anybody else.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 07:27pm PT
|
Chaz, as you know, that is an unreasonable point of view.
You know what they need to do what you want, right? MONEY. It takes millions and millions of dollars to replace those pipes.
They know this. They are replacing them as fast as they can...with the money that ratepayers will permit them to do so.
But you don't have a grasp on the amount of water.
20 million gallons is about 62 acre-feet.
An acre-foot is the amount of water that 2 familes of four use in a year, approx.
So this is the amount of water that 124 families would use in a year.
In the context of the equivalent of 1 million such families, not much water.
or, looked at another way:
Total water usage of city is about 200 BILLION gallons a year.
We are being asked to cut back 20%. That is 40 billion gallons.
So what we are asked to save is:
40,000,000,000 vs, what was lost:
.......20,000,000
less than 1 tenth of 1%..............
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 07:45pm PT
|
I have always been puzzled about water rates to homeowners.
Here in LA, they make two adjustments: one for weather, and another for the size of your lot. They index it to the number of people living there.
I can understand weather---sort of. It is explained by the need for more water for outdoor plants in hot weather.......but don't we want to discourage that, and encourage drought tolerant natives instead of thirsty lawn?
But the size of your lot????? In other words, I get paid a bonus if I have a larger lot than average. I don't agree with that at all.
If I want to squander drinking water on landscaping, let me pay for it. A lot more than average.
THAT is how we generate more revenue for replacement of old pipes!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 08:18pm PT
|
I find it hard to disagree with that point
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 09:05pm PT
|
"Take my advice. I'm not using it."
I just love that line.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 09:12pm PT
|
chaz, you told us yr not on dwp. yr not a dwp customer. and because dwp is a public agency, answerable to la city voters, yr also not involved.
according to the reckoning you gave us of yr water situ, dwp issues don't affect u at all. nor do mwd.
but tfpu
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 09:20pm PT
|
My water district apparently keeps up on its basic maintenance, because nobody around here can remember the last time a pipe burst.
But we don't benefit from a $40,000,000 *Joint Training And Safety Institute*, like LADWP.
Did you read the articles I posted? Apparently LADWP/IBEW is answerable to nobody. The big answer would be what happened to the $40,000,000? And why is infrastructure going to sh#t, if you have $40,000,000 you can't account for?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 09:45pm PT
|
They have the cash - plenty of it, it's just squandered away on foolishness. And excessively high salaries.
Yes ... this whole country is mismanaged.
This why it's full of stupid Americans .....
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 10:23pm PT
|
DWP has it's hands full driving around the eastern SIERRAS counting its' water...give em a break...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|