Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 11:36:53 GMT -5
Are Californians trying to do anything to keep more rainfall there? Are they building more ponds or channeling the rainwater runoff to place that will hold it? I know swales are a good way to hold water in the Earth and they are cheap to build. I think lack of water can be a vicious circle as it changes the topography and that changes rain patterns. How is California dealing with this other then rationing? The EPA "owns" all that runoff water, You can not just capture it. Don't believe me, just check out the EPA self made up rules! That is a big part of the problem I imagine. Swales are a good way to capture water that the government would probably not stop. They are just level ditches with and end on each end. They hold water for just a short period of time and allow water to seep into the Earth. The Earth then holds the water. Each gallon of water that is held in the Earth instead of ran off to the ocean is one gallon of water more in California Millions of gallons of water could be held this way. Just saving the runoff of roof rainwater would also be millions of gallons of water. I am not suggesting doing anything nefarious with the water, just catch it and put it into the Earth. It is cheap and easy. One man with a shovel could put a swale in his yard in a few hours. One man with a backhoe could do hundreds of yards of swale a day. Once there they are there and working from now on. It might not be the whole solution, but it could easily be a part of the solution.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 5, 2015 11:52:34 GMT -5
Most of Cali problems are self caused, There is no reason that there are not desalination plants all up and down the coast, other than the environmentalist that is in opposition to any changes.
We don't want one of those in my backyard On, And On And on,
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 5, 2015 12:23:38 GMT -5
Most of Cali problems are self caused, There is no reason that there are not desalination plants all up and down the coast, other than the environmentalist that is in opposition to any changes. We don't want one of those in my backyard On, And On And on, most of Cali's successes are self-caused, too. dwelling on the failures appears to be a national pastime. PS- it is raining hard right now. let's hope for 40 days and 40 nights of it.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 5, 2015 12:29:00 GMT -5
Now come the floods and mud slides.
DJ, just think how much better Cali would be than it is now, if the different groups worked together rather fighting each other at every turn.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 5, 2015 12:30:17 GMT -5
Let's face it the same can be said about the all the U.S. also.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 5, 2015 12:58:10 GMT -5
Now come the floods and mud slides. DJ, just think how much better Cali would be than it is now, if the different groups worked together rather fighting each other at every turn. the problem i have with this particular critique is that it shows a poor understanding of how things are here, structurally, politically, and economically. but i will add this: we have never been more united in MY MEMORY than we are now. edit: that doesn't mean we will actually solve this or any other problem, it only means that we have a better shot at it than ever.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 6, 2015 9:31:10 GMT -5
schadenfreude, wow, demi you just taught me a new word, I will use for my enjoyment.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 6, 2015 13:29:15 GMT -5
schadenfreude, wow, demi you just taught me a new word, I will use for my enjoyment. try not to get too much pleasure out of it. people will talk.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Apr 26, 2015 13:17:00 GMT -5
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on Apr 26, 2015 16:52:11 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 26, 2015 20:34:14 GMT -5
i don't think that rationing is the right term, since demand still exceeds resources.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 26, 2015 20:37:07 GMT -5
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on Apr 27, 2015 10:33:55 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 27, 2015 11:00:42 GMT -5
cowan heights is a very wealthy, very Republican district in Southern California. it is full of large lots, lush landscaping, and swimming pools. compton is an urban, very poor, very Democratic district in Southern California. it is full of tenements, apartment houses, and pavement. getting an image of the problem in your mind, yet?
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on Apr 27, 2015 11:26:20 GMT -5
What the hell is there NOT to "get?" Oh, I see. Now we're going to make it a political thing? Bad wealthy Republicans waste water but less wealthy Democrats are, as usual, downtrodden victims?
The article was VERY clear as to the demographics so why head down that path?
This is about WATER USAGE regardless of who is using and the link was posted to show how ridiculous some people are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 11:39:40 GMT -5
cowan heights is a very wealthy, very Republican district in Southern California. it is full of large lots, lush landscaping, and swimming pools. compton is an urban, very Democratic district in Southern California. it is full of tenements, apartment houses, and pavement. getting an image of the problem in your mind, yet? Very much so. The lush Republican landscaping in Cowan Heights will help remove carbon from the atmosphere returning California's precipitation to a more normal pattern, rebuilding the mountain snow pack. While the carbon emissions from tenements and apartment houses (and cars) in Compton are unable to be absorbed into the concrete and remain in the atmosphere as a cause of AGW and the drought. Dense pack, Democrat housing, causes AGW. If you believe in carbon caused AGW.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Apr 27, 2015 11:58:31 GMT -5
572 gallons per day seems extreme even for a rich county.
They should probably use a tiered system of pricing but apparently that is unconstitutional. First 50 gallons is pretty cheap, next 50 a little more. Then start to skyrocket after that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 27, 2015 13:01:05 GMT -5
cowan heights is a very wealthy, very Republican district in Southern California. it is full of large lots, lush landscaping, and swimming pools. compton is an urban, very Democratic district in Southern California. it is full of tenements, apartment houses, and pavement. getting an image of the problem in your mind, yet? Very much so. The lush Republican landscaping in Cowan Heights will help remove carbon from the atmosphere returning California's precipitation to a more normal pattern, rebuilding the mountain snow pack. While the carbon emissions from tenements and apartment houses (and cars) in Compton are unable to be absorbed into the concrete and remain in the atmosphere as a cause of AGW and the drought. Dense pack, Democrat housing, causes AGW. If you believe in carbon caused AGW. um....no. this was about water use, not greenhouse gasses, bro. remember, AGW doesn't exist.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 27, 2015 13:01:26 GMT -5
572 gallons per day seems extreme even for a rich county. They should probably use a tiered system of pricing but apparently that is unconstitutional. First 50 gallons is pretty cheap, next 50 a little more. Then start to skyrocket after that. we are working on that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 27, 2015 13:04:46 GMT -5
What the hell is there NOT to "get?" Oh, I see. Now we're going to make it a political thing?
not my intention. i was just pointing it out, because there are very few urban and suburban GOP districts in CA. this one is just east of Orange, so it is quite red.
Bad wealthy Republicans waste water but less wealthy Democrats are, as usual, downtrodden victims?
PLEASE unbundle your panties. this was more about economics than politics. i was just pointing it out because you know as well as i do that if it is not mentioned, everyone will just assume that it is "those crazy liberals".
The article was VERY clear as to the demographics so why head down that path?
because i live here, and i have been to these places. have you?
This is about WATER USAGE regardless of who is using and the link was posted to show how ridiculous some people are.
indeed. some people are quite ridiculous. some people consume 10x the water of others. and it may not be drawn along political lines, but it is very much an economics issue. i am sure you could find places like Hollywood and parts of Santa Barbara, that are quite liberal, that have similar usage.
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on Apr 27, 2015 14:23:57 GMT -5
Regardless of your intent, bringing politics into it is/was off point IMO. Likewise the somewhat derogatory inference in your "unbundle" comment was uncalled for and far below what I would have expected from an intellect such as you - a simple, "relax" followed by your point would have sufficed.
FYI, while there certainly are crazy liberals, the same goes for conservatives and that's been bounced around ad nauseam on other threads. For me, when it comes to water usage, I see no relevant link to political affiliation.
I actually DO live here (in my parent's basement of course) and have seen this although I have not been to the area referenced in the link if that makes a difference.
After thinking about it a bit more, I'll have to concede it is ALSO an economic issue but my original thought was to point out water waste itself rather than why some people use more or less than others.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 27, 2015 14:59:49 GMT -5
Regardless of your intent, bringing politics into it is/was off point IMO. Likewise the somewhat derogatory inference in your "unbundle" comment was uncalled for and far below what I would have expected from an intellect such as you - a simple, "relax" followed by your point would have sufficed.
you seemed agitated to me, and it was totally unintended, kent.
FYI, while there certainly are crazy liberals, the same goes for conservatives and that's been bounced around ad nauseam on other threads. For me, when it comes to water usage, I see no relevant link to political affiliation.
i think that rich people do whatever they want. cost doesn't matter to them. that was my point. making this an economics matter will hurt everyone other than them, imo.
I actually DO live here (in my parent's basement of course) and have seen this although I have not been to the area referenced in the link if that makes a difference.
After thinking about it a bit more, I'll have to concede it is ALSO an economic issue but my original thought was to point out water waste itself rather than why some people use more or less than others. i think the economic aspect of this debate is kinda all there is to it, myself. there is no way that we are going to solve it by scaling the pricing to residents, since the vast majority of water is not consumed by residents in the state.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 11:05:52 GMT -5
Very much so. The lush Republican landscaping in Cowan Heights will help remove carbon from the atmosphere returning California's precipitation to a more normal pattern, rebuilding the mountain snow pack. While the carbon emissions from tenements and apartment houses (and cars) in Compton are unable to be absorbed into the concrete and remain in the atmosphere as a cause of AGW and the drought. Dense pack, Democrat housing, causes AGW. If you believe in carbon caused AGW. um....no. this was about water use, not greenhouse gasses, bro. remember, AGW doesn't exist. I just view AGW as one of many possible theories. That still hasn't been proven with an accurate model. They're getting to the point of almost changing the parameters weekly now. I believe I've also seen you "liking" happy's posts that were claiming a correalation between AGW and California's extended drought. Where is the error that less dense, large lot, Republican neighborhoods that use water to maintain the lush plant growth is a bad thing, or not about water ?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 28, 2015 11:47:50 GMT -5
um....no. this was about water use, not greenhouse gasses, bro. remember, AGW doesn't exist. I just view AGW as one of many possible theories. That still hasn't been proven with an accurate model. They're getting to the point of almost changing the parameters weekly now. I believe I've also seen you "liking" happy's posts that were claiming a correalation between AGW and California's extended drought. have you considered that i might have liked the post, and not the correlation? or maybe that i just like the poster, and not the post or the correlation? i do that sometimes, you know.Where is the error that less dense, large lot, Republican neighborhoods that use water to maintain the lush plant growth is a bad thing, or not about water ? i never claimed that irrigating huge lawns in rich suburbs is not a problem. it IS a problem. however, i would like to point out AGAIN that the vast majority of water use in CA is not residential. IE: i believe that if we could stop FLOOD IRRIGATING CROPS, our "drought" would be over tomorrow.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 12:38:22 GMT -5
I just view AGW as one of many possible theories. That still hasn't been proven with an accurate model. They're getting to the point of almost changing the parameters weekly now. I believe I've also seen you "liking" happy's posts that were claiming a correalation between AGW and California's extended drought. have you considered that i might have liked the post, and not the correlation? or maybe that i just like the poster, and not the post or the correlation? i do that sometimes, you know.Where is the error that less dense, large lot, Republican neighborhoods that use water to maintain the lush plant growth is a bad thing, or not about water ? i never claimed that irrigating huge lawns in rich suburbs is not a problem. it IS a problem. however, i would like to point out AGAIN that the vast majority of water use in CA is not residential. IE: i believe that if we could stop FLOOD IRRIGATING CROPS, our "drought" would be over tomorrow. Agreed on flood irrigation. You are a local information source so I will defer to your knowledge of that in the area. I've only liked posts when I was in agreement with the post information. I don't think I have ever liked a post while disregarding it's content. I was the one who claimed watering "lush plant growth" in Republican lawns is not a problem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 28, 2015 13:22:55 GMT -5
i never claimed that irrigating huge lawns in rich suburbs is not a problem. it IS a problem. however, i would like to point out AGAIN that the vast majority of water use in CA is not residential. IE: i believe that if we could stop FLOOD IRRIGATING CROPS, our "drought" would be over tomorrow. Agreed on flood irrigation. You are a local information source so I will defer to your knowledge of that in the area. I've only liked posts when I was in agreement with the post information. I don't think I have ever liked a post while disregarding it's content. I was the one who claimed watering "lush plant growth" in Republican lawns is not a problem. i don't understand the last comment. i have explained the Republican remark 2-3x already. if you need me to do so again, i will. otherwise, please accept that i was trying to make an inference ONLY about the money part of the equation, not the politics. i mentioned the politics because the water crisis affects EVERYONE in the state. if you don't appreciate the way i framed it, that is fine. i can live with that. edit: i reviewed every post in this thread, and i didn't "like" any of happy's posts here. do you mind giving me a post number?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 13:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 11:42:33 GMT -5
Agreed on flood irrigation. You are a local information source so I will defer to your knowledge of that in the area. I've only liked posts when I was in agreement with the post information. I don't think I have ever liked a post while disregarding it's content. I was the one who claimed watering "lush plant growth" in Republican lawns is not a problem. i don't understand the last comment. i have explained the Republican remark 2-3x already. if you need me to do so again, i will. otherwise, please accept that i was trying to make an inference ONLY about the money part of the equation, not the politics. i mentioned the politics because the water crisis affects EVERYONE in the state. if you don't appreciate the way i framed it, that is fine. i can live with that. edit: i reviewed every post in this thread, and i didn't "like" any of happy's posts here. do you mind giving me a post number? Yes, I know you feel rich Republicans using water to maintain lush growth on large lots is a negative. I was the one who claimed that a spread out population maintaining plant growth helps reduce atmospheric carbon (post#146) which is fervently believed by some to cause global warming, which happy was correlating as a cause of California's drought. Unfortunately that post about global warming causing California's last mud puddle to dry up or something like that wasn't on this thread. I believe that was the one you "liked". Not that it really matters. California is overpopulated and will continue to have all kinds of self generated problems. Please stay there.
|
|