Editorial: Californians need a new mindset about water
Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Jan. 3, 2015, Fresno Bee.
One of the worst droughts on record forced California lawmakers and voters to implement far-reaching initiatives intended to change how the state manages water. And while the policy shifts last year were remarkable, Californians did not achieve the goal of conservation set by the governor.
The disconnect is baffling, considering how much California accomplished in water policy last year. Voters approved a $7.5 billion water bond in a landslide, and legislators passed historic legislation that finally will lead to groundwater regulation.
Lawmakers also approved a $687 million drought-relief package to assist farmworkers impacted by the drought, provide water for communities facing shortages and fund storm water capture and recycling.
Progress was extraordinary, given that water has been a source of perennial conflict in the Golden State.
Simple: people are willing to throw other people’s money at a problem, as long as it doesn’t mean they personally have to be inconvenienced. It’s how California’s been operating for a long time.
Simple. Install water meters at every single water connection in the state and charge for actual consumption, with rate tiers based on such consumption. As electricity rates are structured.
With water users in such cities as Fresno and Sacramento being allowed to use as much water as they want without meters, there is little or no incentive to conserve.
And stop approving massive new subdivisions unless ample water supplies are able to support them.
Politicians have been kowtowing to the enviro nuts forever and have not taken steps to secure capacity. And now, when we suffer a drought, the homeowners are expected to shoulder the burden caused by political malfeasance and destroy their built up home equity by willingly allowing their landscaping to die off. Fine. But I want pay back against the politicians in the form of their unemployment.
80% of human water use in California is used by Agriculture. I can’t understand why Californians continue to pass these huge water bonds to support these commercial interests. The farmers then complain that they don’t have enough water and pump groundwater, depriving surrounding communities of their water sources in some cases. Groundwater pumping is now going to be regulated, so get ready for more lobbying from agricultural concerns to get you to pay for more infrastructure upgrades.
The problem starts and ends with Agriculture. Getting 20% of the users to cut back 20% is going to save 5% of the human-used water, which is nothing.
Yobobby, id like to know why you think capacity is an issue when there are probably 100, s of reservoirs sitting with very little water in them. So how is building more reservoirs gonna change this reality? Seriously, how is that going to work? You have some connection with the water goddess who will magically fill up some arbitrary reservoirs? I hear the wing nuts keep saying we need more, more, more and yet what we have sits almost empty due to LACK OF PERCIPITATION. But, hey, you seem to have all the answers.
Agree with Skysos, just search California + Almond + Water and you will come across many articles about what is using a huge portion of California’s water.
The above comments, in total, clearly illustrate the truth in the statement “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”
The fact that California waited until 2014 to enact regulations on ground water is amazing, since other states have had it for years. But once enacted it is a real mistake to believe that suddenly passing legislation is going to work immediately as planned in less than a year.
The article saying California did not reach the conservation goals set by the government is just some journalist writing without thinking.
California does have legislation in place to require metering all large water systems, unfortunately 2025 is the deadline. We needed it 25 years ago, not in the future.
Well, it’s bike weather in January again folks. Time to plan for a worst case scenario, if the drought continues for years to come.
a. Water conservation and reclamation.
b. Better use of agricultural water.
c. Improved rainwater collection/storage in cites.
d. Build or extend water projects to more northern latitudes.
e. Desalination near coastal areas.
It is good to know we have about 38 Cubic miles of fresh water in Lake Tahoe, but I would think that STPUD would be working on ways to reclaim the water we send to Markleeville anyway.
rock4tahoe, All good points about getting us thru what I see as a major drought but also having MAJOR impacts, and not just here in California, but everywhere!
Stock up on canned food as prices will go thru the roof when California farmers can’t grow crops. As water becomes scarce, even drnking water could become limited.
Think of everything you can to conserve water!
Sound alarmist? No. It’s called being prepared for what COULD happen. OLS
OLS. Farmers will be able to grow some crops but clearly, rice, fruit/nut trees and livestock consume the most water; adjust accordingly.
Rock, good points. Building more water storage is to store water forwhen we need it, so of course they will be almost empty when we ddon’t get rain. Imagine if we didn’t have them to fill in good years where we would be now.
Rock, i do believe that STPUD does reuse the water that is shipped over the hill is re used for agriculture as well as have it generate energy, though I could be wrong
Relo. The water storage is already here and it was supplied by Nature in the form of aquifers. California has the most extensive water storage and distribution system in the USA. The problem is supply; where do we get more fresh water.