California's wealthy lagging in water conservation There are few signs of California’s epic drought along a stretch of Maple Drive in Beverly Hills.
Deep green front lawns stretch out, dotted with healthy trees and sculpted foliage. The only brown lawn in sight was at a home under construction.
As California gears up for the first mandatory water restrictions in its history, a long-standing class divide about water use is becoming increasingly apparent.
Beverly Hills and other affluent cities use far more water per capita than less-wealthy communities, prompting some to cast them as villains in California’s water conservation effort. The problem lies, in part, in the social isolation of the rich, the moral isolation of the rich. - Stephanie Pincetl, who worked on the UCLA water-use study
Residents in communities such as La Canada Flintridge, Newport Beach, Malibu and Palos Verdes all used more than 150 gallons of water per capita per day in January. By contrast, Santa Ana used just 38 gallons and communities in Southeast L.A. County used less than 45.
Water usage in Los Angeles was 70 gallons per capita. But within the city, a recent UCLA study examining a decade of Department of Water and Power data showed that on average, wealthier neighborhoods consume three times more water than less-affluent ones.
With Gov. Jerry Brown’s order requiring a 25% cut in water consumption, upscale communities are scrambling to develop stricter laws that will work where years of voluntary standards have not. Many believe it’s going to take a change in culture as well as city rules to hit the goal. lRelated Quiz: Test your knowledge of the California drought
“Some people -- believe it or not -- don't know we are in a drought,” said George Murdoch, general manager of utilities in Newport Beach, which is beginning to fine chronic water wasters. “We have people that own a home here but aren't around a lot, so they could miss a leak.”
Stephanie Pincetl, who worked on the UCLA water-use study, said wealthy Californians are “lacking a sense that we are all in this together.”
“The problem lies, in part, in the social isolation of the rich, the moral isolation of the rich,” Pincetl said.
Until now, Beverly Hills officials said they have focused on educating, rather than penalizing water wasters. The city is in the second stage of its emergency water conservation plan, which calls for voluntary limits on use of fountains that do not use recycled water, pavement washing and lawn watering to reduce water consumption by 10%.
But on Friday, fountains, sprinklers and hoses seemed to flow freely throughout the city.
Across from City Hall at the Beverly Gardens Park, perfectly green hedges frame rows of blooming flowers, tended by columns of black sprinkler heads. A fountain balanced on the backs of four stone satyrs burbled pleasantly. Tourists posed for a picture in front of the iconic Beverly Hills sign, which overlooks a water feature the size of a racquetball court.
City officials will introduce a stricter plan that they say will achieve the governor's 25% reduction target at a council meeting this month. There is some debate as to how much residents can change.
Kay Dangaard, a longtime Beverly Hills resident who recently moved to a condo just outside the city, said she’s seen much apathy about the drought.
“In this part of town, everyone is just too important to see outside themselves,” she said as she shopped at the Beverly Hills Whole Foods Market. “Where are these people going to go with all their money when the water is gone?”
Despite the bountifully lush landscaping, there are signs that Beverly Hills is beginning to get the message. Marianna Dzierzbinska, 76, listed her water conservation tactics as she hefted strawberry cartons at the Whole Foods. She uses cold water that runs before the shower gets hot to water her plants. When her finicky wire terriers Alfie and Lily knock some food into their water and refuse to drink it, she collects the leftovers in a bucket.
She leaned in close to share her last strategy. “When I don't have guests, I don't flush every single time,” Dzierzbinska whispers.
At Bouchon, an upscale restaurant in the heart of Beverly Hills that seats 120, general manager Justin Williams says the restaurant is doing all it can to help. Water is only available on request. He instructs his bartenders to scrape the ice for drinks, not scoop it. They use less water to wash dishes and keep the restaurant clean.
“Of course we take every measure we can,” he said. “But we don’t have a lot of water usage we can cut.”
The effects of California's ongoing drought are evident at Diamond Valley Lake in Hemet as shells, once under water, lie in the soil of recently exposed banks. Extremely low levels of water flowing through meandering streams of the east fork of the San Gabriel River in the Angeles National Forest show the effects of the prolonged drought. The water flows into the San Gabriel Dam and the Morris Dam, further downstream.
There are some early signs that Beverly Hills is conserving more. According or state data, the city’s water use dropped from 226 gallons per capita per day last July to 144 in January. Water use is seasonal, however, so the true test will come this summer when temperatures rise.
But some residents aren't sure how far they're willing to go. Eric, an entertainment industry worker who asked not to use his full name, said he’s trying to conserve water, making sure the faucet doesn’t run as he brushes his teeth and does the dishes. But there's also his fountain and the jacuzzi and the lemon and orange trees to consider.
Seated at a sidewalk table at Urth Caffe in Beverly Hills, he said he could probably conserve more.
“This is America. You gotta live it up a little bit, right?” he said.
High water use by upscale cities is about more than lifestyle. These communities tend to have fewer apartments and less dense housing. The dwellings tend to be larger and include sprawling grounds in need of water. The UCLA study found that owners of single-family homes often over-water when restrictions are not in place.
The Santa Fe Irrigation District, which serves affluent communities in northern San Diego County, recorded the state’s highest residential per capita water use during one month in 2014. The district recently began sending engineers to large properties to perform water savings checkups that identify areas of waste.
The resort communities that dot the Palm Springs area also use large amounts of water, which is needed to keep backyards and a plethora of golf courses verdant amid scorching desert heat.
In Orange County, resident Mike Bennett said some locals think twice about curtailing their landscaping because they are concerned about hurting their property values. Bennett said he thinks Newport Beach uses more water than other areas because of the way it was designed.
“It was designed for quality of life, with big, open spaces, compared to urban areas with smaller lots,” he said.
Newport Beach, like Beverly Hills, has seen a steady drop in water use over the last few months. Officials say they have limited lawn watering to four days a week in the spring and summer and slap water wasters with fines. The city says it’s prepared to increase restrictions, such as prohibiting the filling of swimming pools.
Some Newport Beach residents are even taking on the role of drought cops.
A neighbor — a landscape architect with drought-tolerant landscaping and no grass in his yard — snapped a photo of Beliakoff, hose in hand, and sent it to the board of the local homeowner’s association.
Beliakoff was angry and embarrassed, but the shaming made him think. He would be willing to take out all of his grass if the state’s water situation doesn’t improve, and adds that he and his neighbors no longer wash their cars by hand. He follows drought news more closely, and he’s troubled by what he reads.
“It scares me big-time, especially if we don’t get a handle on it. It’s in the back of my head, always.”
"Voluntary" restrictions, coupled with "education" on the water issue. Don't expect anything to happen until it is mandatory, and even then there will be kicking and screaming.
We went from voluntary to mandatory water restrictions in Galveston County a few years back. People in my neighborhood didn't stop doing jack gak until it was mandatory and the tickets starting getting passed out.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: "Voluntary" restrictions, coupled with "education" on the water issue. Don't expect anything to happen until it is mandatory, and even then there will be kicking and screaming.
If people are smart they would boost their water usage immediately by 25%. That way when they are cut back by rationing by 20%, they are ahead of the game.
You see, what people aren't realising is that it's ok for rich people to have more water, because, when they use it on their gardens, it's going to trickle down to the yards of poorer people, thus ensuring that there is more water all round.
Solution is simple: water wasters are bourgeois parasites and enemies of the people. Send them for educational holiday to coal mines of Vorkuta (or whatever really cold, really remote places the US has).
US needs to learn more lessons from I.V. Stalin.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder if Cali looked into Water Desalination plants
Some hippy type probably got some "information" from an infowars type of website that decries the evil of desalination.... and some ultra donkey cave actor would probably through a bitch fit over someone "ruining" their coastline.
I agree that Oregon and Washington should, in no way shape or form provide water to those idiots in Cali.
Jihadin wrote: Wonder if Cali looked into Water Desalination plants
Some hippy type probably got some "information" from an infowars type of website that decries the evil of desalination.... and some ultra donkey cave actor would probably through a bitch fit over someone "ruining" their coastline.
I agree that Oregon and Washington should, in no way shape or form provide water to those idiots in Cali.
AGREED. Now they can take the money they use to give Illega................never mind
Jihadin wrote: Wonder if Cali looked into Water Desalination plants
Some hippy type probably got some "information" from an infowars type of website that decries the evil of desalination.... and some ultra donkey cave actor would probably through a bitch fit over someone "ruining" their coastline.
I agree that Oregon and Washington should, in no way shape or form provide water to those idiots in Cali.
AGREED. Now they can take the money they use to give Illega................never mind
Also... Nevada, Oregon and Arizona should build coinjoining walls on all borders with California
Jihadin wrote: How many would have to get laid off as farms shut down?
Hard to say, but I just found this article that talks about some farmers selling their water off instead of planting. This'll go down well for food prices if this is wide spread.
I think that, outside of Sriracha, maybe rice, and avocados I can't think of anything else that isn't grown locally in Washington (where I live) at a level to sustain our own state and maybe parts of Oregon/Idaho.... and that's not even counting our supplying the country with apples.
So really... avocados, big deal not useful for much the Sriracha may be a problem for some folks though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And really, I think this just goes to show that a city built in the middle of a fething desert that can't support more than a few 10s or 100s of thousands of people shouldnt be supporting millions of people.
The amount of water being forced to divert there should give people a clue that they shouldn't be living there, and until California manages its own resources (such as stopping Nestle, and probably fracking) in such a manner to sustain themselves, we shouldn't be even discussing the potential "sacrifice" of resources from elsewhere. All we'd be doing is further feed the problems in play there
California residents count for about 10% of the state's water usage. Until they go after major users like Veneco (fracking) and Nestle, it's like trying to control your household debt by cutting your kid's allowance.
Edit: Ensis is like, I don't know, some kind of super stealthy warrior type. Unseen, unheard. The name escapes me.
"Today a friend sent me a very scary account of someone who drove through California and saw field after field laying fallow and totally unattended. Without water, they could not grow. To see the impact this will have on our country, I looked up how much of our food comes from California. Over half of our nation's fruit and nuts come from California, as do a quarter of our veggies. The percent of veggies would be higher if we excluded our favorite vegetable, potatoes, from the calculation. That said, which specific crops would we no longer grow if California stopped farming?
Crop: Percent Grown in California in 2007*
Pomegranates: 100%
Artichokes: 99%
Kiwi: 97%
Olives: 96%
Figs: 96%
Pluots: 95%
Plums and Prunes: 94%
Brussel Sprouts: 93%
Avocados: 90%
Nectarines: 89%
Garlic: 85%
Celery: 83%
Grapes: 83%
Dates: 82%
Apricots: 82%
Cauliflower: 82%
Broccoli: 81%
Lemons: 79%
Persimmons: 77%
Honeydew: 77%
Tomatoes: 76%
Lettuce: 73%
Nuts: 65%
Carrots: 62%
Strawberries: 59%
Spinach: 59%
Tangerines: 58%
Chinese Cabbage: 49%
Asparagus: 47%
Cantaloupes: 46%
Peaches: 44%
Limes: 42%
Non-Valencia Oranges: 37%
About the orange, valencias are one of two major Florida varieties used for orange juice. Navel oranges, which are the preferred variety to eat as oranges (and not as juice), primarily grow in California, not Florida. While Florida out-grows California for oranges, Florida's oranges go into juice. It's the Cali oranges that you eat as oranges if you like to eat navels.
*All of this data comes from the 2007 Census of Agriculture"
My family that farms in Maine will be making bank if this drought hits California hard.
feeder wrote: California residents count for about 10% of the state's water usage. Until they go after major users like Veneco (fracking) and Nestle, it's like trying to control your household debt by cutting your kid's allowance.
Edit: Ensis is like, I don't know, some kind of super stealthy warrior type. Unseen, unheard. The name escapes me.
And about half of that 10% is used for watering lawns.
feeder wrote: California residents count for about 10% of the state's water usage. Until they go after major users like Veneco (fracking) and Nestle, it's like trying to control your household debt by cutting your kid's allowance.
Yep. We've been going through water restrictions for years over here, and almost all the focus is on savings by households. But its just token gestures because that's not where the water is used.
Here's the graph for California. You could ban watering gardens, showers, and stop people from drinking water in the whole of Los Angeles, and it wouldn't mean a thing compared to almond crop.
Iron_Captain wrote: Solution is simple: water wasters are bourgeois parasites and enemies of the people. Send them for educational holiday to coal mines of Vorkuta (or whatever really cold, really remote places the US has).
US needs to learn more lessons from I.V. Stalin.
How come Cali is the only place a lot of those crops can be grown?
What proportion of the US's farmland is there?
And, what happened to plans to pipe in water from other states?
The reason Californias growing all that stuff is because its climate is really good for growing stuff if you get past the whole desert thing. But that's the problem here.
It's kind of hard to pump water from other states over the sierra nevadas to get it to the central valley. Not quite as bad as if it were, say, the sheer height of the Alps, but not much better. It would probably take a decade ir two at least to build the infrastructure, and it would probably be obscenely expensive.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I am surprised they haven't blamed the illegal aliens or Obama yet
It's because the political elite and media in california are hardcore democrats. Which, with how poorly California's government is run, is one of the reasons I'm not.
It's because the political elite and media in california are hardcore democrats. Which, with how poorly California's government is run, is one of the reasons I'm not.
I heard on NPR that some of that lefty environmental fundamentalism is at least partially to fault for there not being any immediate solutions for the drought?
Ahh, here it is. They were talking about these comments from Carly Fiorina:
WASHINGTON -- Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina on Monday blamed environmentalists for what she called a "man-made" drought in California, which has led to the state's first water restrictions.
“With different policies over the last 20 years, all of this could be avoided,” Fiorina, a likely 2016 Republican presidential contender, said in an interview with radio host Glenn Beck. “Despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled.”
Fiorina, California's 2010 GOP nominee for U.S. Senate, said it was a "classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people’s lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology. It is a tragedy.”
The drought, now officially in its fourth year, prompted Gov. Jerry Brown (D) last week to order a 25 percent reduction in water consumption. The order does not apply to the agriculture industry, which consumes nearly 80 percent of the state's water.
Lawmakers in Congress and in the state legislature have proposed bills authorizing construction of new dams and reservoirs, citing the need to capture water that ends up in the ocean. They have been opposed by environmental groups, which argue the projects would endanger the state's habitat and endangered species. Last year, House Republicans proposed pumping additional water to Southern California, but the bill failed under a veto threat from President Barack Obama.
There is significant debate about whether the state has enough water left, at this point, to justify the cost of building new dams and reservoirs. According to The Sacramento Bee, some new reservoirs, wouldn't supply significant new water.
"There's nothing magical in and of themselves to build a (reservoir) facility," Lester Snow, the executive director of the California Water Foundation, told the Bee last year. "If we had two more surface storage facilities that we built 10 years ago -- pick any of the two that people are talking about -- they would both be very low right now. There's a tendency to pull down our surface storage when we get mildly short of water."
NextGen Climate, the climate-focused political group run by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, on Monday evening called Fiorina's comments "irrational."
"For a science denier to opine that Democrats caused the drought in California is about as irrational as believing someone who failed at running a business in California and then failed as a candidate for office in California has any cause to be running for the highest office in the land," Bobby Whithorne, the group's spokesman, said in a statement.
The Sierra Club, a national environmental group, disputed Fiorina's assertion that more dams and reservoirs would have lessened the impact of the drought.
"For more than 100 years, environmentalists have failed to stop the damming of nearly every significant river in California. And yet all of the hundreds of dams out there have done nothing to produce rain or snow pack over the last four years. That's because you can't store what's not there," said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club's California chapter. "We simply don't have rain or snow pack and are suffering the worst California drought since water agencies and weather trackers started keeping records."
"What we are seeing is exactly what climate scientists have predicted would happen in California with the onset of human-caused climate disruption: Weather and precipitation would become less predictable and droughts would become more frequent and more severe," Phillips added.
*Note, I was unaware of Fiorina's political affiliations when I heard NPR talking about it. They just referred to her as "former HP CEO."
Frazzled wrote: Building a high speed rail is way more kewl.
Can't they do both? Get people riding logs along the water pipes? There's quite a drop at the mountains, so it'll be high speed after that bit.
Or ship the water by train.
I heard about the pumping-water things years ago, so if they'd done that then, there'd not be an issue now.
Frazzled wrote: Building a high speed rail is way more kewl.
Can't they do both? Get people riding logs along the water pipes? There's quite a drop at the mountains, so it'll be high speed after that bit.
Or ship the water by train.
I heard about the pumping-water things years ago, so if they'd done that then, there'd not be an issue now.
They're trying to get water rights from Oregon and WA. Which I don't think they will get. Olympic area is consider a "Rain Forest" which support big giant wolves and glittery vampires.
Now look at a topographical map. Like half of Washington is "Plains" which is a large portion of yellow or east of Washington. That hardline of yellow is a mountain range running from northern Washington down though Oregon (West of the mountains of Oregon and Washington) is where they want to draw water from. Its where the rainforest is located. It steady mist, rain, drizzle, in/around North Western WA and we have snow melt year round from both sides of the state (Cascade and Crystal) Washington and Oregon has snow melt from Cascade.
Jihadin wrote: Now look at a topographical map. Like half of Washington is "Plains" which is a large portion of yellow or east of Washington. That hardline of yellow is a mountain range running from northern Washington down though Oregon (West of the mountains of Oregon and Washington) is where they want to draw water from. Its where the rainforest is located. It steady mist, rain, drizzle, in/around North Western WA and we have snow melt year round from both sides of the state (Cascade and Crystal) Washington and Oregon has snow melt from Cascade.
Yet that steady mist, rain drizzle, in/around North Western WA and the snow melt year round from both sides of the state is still not enough to keep Washington or Oregon out of a drought.
Where is the farmland located in Washington State? Where is the farmland located in Oregon? If those states have their own farmland suffering from drought why would they want to build a giant pipeline to send their water to California?
So... If I understand this correctly, California is one of the main agricultural area of the US. Why is one of the main agricultural areas of the US in a desert? That does not seem very efficient...
Iron_Captain wrote: So... If I understand this correctly, California is one of the main agricultural area of the US. Why is one of the main agricultural areas of the US in a desert? That does not seem very efficient...
Its not. Welcome to America!
Central California (being a desert) gets LOTS of sun but moderate temperatures, almost year around. Other areas have better soil, more rain etc. Frankly its almost hydroponics-imported seeds, imported water, imported fertilizer.
timetowaste85 wrote: Can we just dump Cali into the ocean? There's nothing important there.
the whole framework of hollywood?
also, some of the best universities in the country, one of which I'm attending.
silicone valley.
some of the sexiest women out there
timetowaste85 wrote: Can we just dump Cali into the ocean? There's nothing important there.
the whole framework of hollywood?
also, some of the best universities in the country, one of which I'm attending.
silicone valley.
some of the sexiest women out there
timetowaste85 wrote: Can we just dump Cali into the ocean? There's nothing important there.
the whole framework of hollywood?
also, some of the best universities in the country, one of which I'm attending.
silicone valley.
some of the sexiest women out there
1 out of 4 isn't bad, I guess......
Isn't it more 2 out of 4? I mean silicone valley and Hollywood do belong to California, although as far as important things in California in terms of music there's it psychedelic rock scene, west coast hip hop and it's punk scene.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not. Cali's a freaking desert.
Iron_Captain wrote:So... If I understand this correctly, California is one of the main agricultural area of the US. Why is one of the main agricultural areas of the US in a desert? That does not seem very efficient...
California is not a desert. Well it wasn't before the drought I guess. Saying otherwise is seriously misinformed, misleading, and bordering on completely ignorant. The farmland here in NorCal is in a freaking delta. A delta.
The majority of land used for agriculture is in a valley between the coastal mountains and the Sierra Nevada. Here, try this:
Perhaps Frazz is thinking of Las Vegas, which is indeed planted in the middle of the freaking desert and has no significant natural sources of water. But Vegas is in Nevada. Anyways, I'll be dammed if I have to listen to a Texan tell me I live in a desert.
by city: southern California: Days Place Inches Millimetres 33 Anaheim 13.4 341 39 Bakersfield 6.5 164 37 Burbank 17.3 440 32 Chula Vista 9.8 250 13 El Centro 2.9 72 42 Escondido 15.0 381 – Fullerton 13.9 353 – Irvine 14.3 364 29 Lancaster 7.4 187 35 Long Beach 12.3 311 36 Los Angeles 14.9 379 33 Oceanside 10.3 262 – Ontario 15.0 382 35 Oxnard 15.9 404 27 Palmdale 7.4 188 43 Pasadena 21.2 539 27 Pomona 17.2 436 30 Riverside 10.3 262 57 Salinas 12.8 326 38 San Bernardino 16.0 407 42 San Diego 10.3 263 52 San Luis Obispo 23.1 587 36 Santa Ana 13.6 346 39 Santa Barbara 19.4 494 – Thousand Oaks 16.5 420 35 Torrance 14.5 367 28 Victorville 6.2 156 40 Visalia 10.9 278
And now for a place where it actually rains: Houston has had an average rainfall of 52.69 inches over the last 30 years, which is 35% more than the average nationwide, and 48% more than the average in Texas. http://average-rainfall.findthebest.com/l/249/Houston-Texas
by city: southern California: Days Place Inches Millimetres 33 Anaheim 13.4 341 39 Bakersfield 6.5 164 37 Burbank 17.3 440 32 Chula Vista 9.8 250 13 El Centro 2.9 72 42 Escondido 15.0 381 – Fullerton 13.9 353 – Irvine 14.3 364 29 Lancaster 7.4 187 35 Long Beach 12.3 311 36 Los Angeles 14.9 379 33 Oceanside 10.3 262 – Ontario 15.0 382 35 Oxnard 15.9 404 27 Palmdale 7.4 188 43 Pasadena 21.2 539 27 Pomona 17.2 436 30 Riverside 10.3 262 57 Salinas 12.8 326 38 San Bernardino 16.0 407 42 San Diego 10.3 263 52 San Luis Obispo 23.1 587 36 Santa Ana 13.6 346 39 Santa Barbara 19.4 494 – Thousand Oaks 16.5 420 35 Torrance 14.5 367 28 Victorville 6.2 156 40 Visalia 10.9 278
Well, yeah. You literally just named all of the cities in the southern Californian desert, and basin. The only thing they grow in Victorville is exploded meth trailers.
Fresno, Tulare, San Joaquin, Monterey, Merced counties - decidedly NOT deserts. And while rainfall might be low in some opinions, remember that these are flood plains and deltas which are fed by snowmelt. Want to know why the soil is so rich in the central valley? Because for hundres of years the land has been flooded seasonally. It's not like some failed gold miners gave up and said "screw it, let's plant some artichokes in this desolate hellhole."
by city: southern California:
Days Place Inches Millimetres
33 Anaheim 13.4 341
39 Bakersfield 6.5 164
37 Burbank 17.3 440
32 Chula Vista 9.8 250
13 El Centro 2.9 72
42 Escondido 15.0 381
– Fullerton 13.9 353
– Irvine 14.3 364
29 Lancaster 7.4 187
35 Long Beach 12.3 311
36 Los Angeles 14.9 379
33 Oceanside 10.3 262
– Ontario 15.0 382
35 Oxnard 15.9 404
27 Palmdale 7.4 188
43 Pasadena 21.2 539
27 Pomona 17.2 436
30 Riverside 10.3 262
57 Salinas 12.8 326
38 San Bernardino 16.0 407
42 San Diego 10.3 263
52 San Luis Obispo 23.1 587
36 Santa Ana 13.6 346
39 Santa Barbara 19.4 494
– Thousand Oaks 16.5 420
35 Torrance 14.5 367
28 Victorville 6.2 156
40 Visalia 10.9 278
Well, yeah. You literally just named all of the cities in the southern Californian desert, and basin. The only thing they grow in Victorville is exploded meth trailers.
Fresno, Tulare, San Joaquin, Monterey, Merced counties - decidedly NOT deserts. And while rainfall might be low in some opinions, remember that these are flood plains and deltas which are fed by snowmelt. Want to know why the soil is so rich in the central valley? Because for hundres of years the land has been flooded seasonally. It's not like some failed gold miners gave up and said "screw it, let's plant some artichokes in this desolate hellhole."
Thats northern California.
And the soil is...ok.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: You are putting up a good fight, Lint, but certain prodigious Dakka OT posters loves to gak on California. It really should be on the bingo card.
Hey when a state tries to kill you, you tend to get a little P'oed about it.
Isn't there a movement for Northern Cal to separate and form their own state? Kinda like the idiots that want to make chicago/chicagoland its own state
Ustrello wrote: Isn't there a movement for Northern Cal to separate and form their own state? Kinda like the idiots that want to make chicago/chicagoland its own state
The northernmost third of the state is actually red enough to five Frazz a run for his money. So yeah, they'd like to break away from a decidedly Southern Hollywood and San Francisco liberal dominated legislature.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On Topic: Here's a fun article from last summer about these Beverly Hills and Malibu rich fethers:
Jihadin wrote: West of the mountains for your farmland. Who said WA and OR agreed to send water down to CA
Actually, I don't think much of the farmland is where you think it is.... IIRC most of the apples are in that "drought" zone, along the columbia gorge. Wheat and corn are grown on the east side as well.
actually google brought this up:
Spoiler:
So I hope you can see that even we're not really in a position to be simply shipping water off as we please. About the only "crop" grown that we can cut down, or out is the "Turf Grass" category.
timetowaste85 wrote: Can we just dump Cali into the ocean? There's nothing important there.
Oh I wish you did we would make Atlantis! And you would realize that we produce 25% of the worlds fruits and vegetables! And you will starve.
But your not important...
On a serious note People leaving the water on is not the problem it involves politics plan and simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Isn't there a movement for Northern Cal to separate and form their own state? Kinda like the idiots that want to make chicago/chicagoland its own state
It was actually rumored it was going to be on the ballot and the main reason we are in a drought because of southern California addiction to the water up north. The Central valley is literally drying up because of our shipping of water and the fact we haven't had good rains for almost a decade.
Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
If California is just going through what may be geologically a typical cycle, not watering those golf courses won't make much difference.
timetowaste85 wrote: Can we just dump Cali into the ocean? There's nothing important there.
Oh I wish you did we would make Atlantis! And you would realize that we produce 25% of the worlds fruits and vegetables! And you will starve.
But your not important...
On a serious note People leaving the water on is not the problem it involves politics plan and simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Isn't there a movement for Northern Cal to separate and form their own state? Kinda like the idiots that want to make chicago/chicagoland its own state
It was actually rumored it was going to be on the ballot and the main reason we are in a drought because of southern California addiction to the water up north. The Central valley is literally drying up because of our shipping of water and the fact we haven't had good rains for almost a decade.
I mean it wouldnt get far since it is against the constitution.
Iron_Captain wrote: Solution is simple: water wasters are bourgeois parasites and enemies of the people. Send them for educational holiday to coal mines of Vorkuta (or whatever really cold, really remote places the US has).
US needs to learn more lessons from I.V. Stalin.
Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
If California is just going through what may be geologically a typical cycle, not watering those golf courses won't make much difference.
Think Frazz might have been the only one living around that time frame......actually.....I do remember Julius Caesar being a Centurion.........how far back we going here?!?!?!
Heard how Oprah is financing water operation on her own property to keep her grass green....
DarkTraveler777 wrote: You are putting up a good fight, Lint, but certain prodigious Dakka OT posters loves to gak on California. It really should be on the bingo card.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with all the buildings and massive expanses of blacktop they've built everywhere which act as a giant heat generator. Mix in a huge population and add it all to a natural desert area and it's very little wonder things are drying out.
Everyone knows its a race which state falls off first
1. Florida with some of its massive hurricanes they catch
2. The Big One that would take a long slice of Cali
Way beyond the point that it does happen no one going to say "Obama fault" but "Finally"
Ustrello wrote: Looks like cali got hit with rain storms and snow, so maybe a bit of relief.
If it's anything like Oklahoma, then rain storms don't really help with much of anything. The ground is too dry to absorb all that moisture and it just runs off and away.
I should go outside and take pictures cause you guys fail to recognize that we are literally the most geological diverse state in the union! We do have a desert its way way down south next to LA. The central valley is warm but and may be considered "dry" but the thing is we do not have humidity which is perfect conditions for growing anything! Now north California is not where most of are produce is grown (unless you count marijuana and grapes for wine) also we have lots of red wood trees.
stanman wrote: It couldn't possibly have anything to do with all the buildings and massive expanses of blacktop they've built everywhere which act as a giant heat generator. Mix in a huge population and add it all to a natural desert area and it's very little wonder things are drying out.
Which blacktop expansive population centers caused the earlier droughts shown here?
stanman wrote: It couldn't possibly have anything to do with all the buildings and massive expanses of blacktop they've built everywhere which act as a giant heat generator. Mix in a huge population and add it all to a natural desert area and it's very little wonder things are drying out.
Which blacktop expansive population centers caused the earlier droughts shown here?
Iron_Captain wrote: Solution is simple: water wasters are bourgeois parasites and enemies of the people. Send them for educational holiday to coal mines of Vorkuta (or whatever really cold, really remote places the US has).
US needs to learn more lessons from I.V. Stalin.
Grey Templar wrote: Anyway, while LA might not pull a large chunk of water they still have no business pulling what they do. Lawns should be illegal down there.
In the San Gabriel Valley (part of LA county) I am seeing a lot of people elect to let their lawns wither or swap the grass and non-native plants out for drought resistant and native plants. Some cities have also adopted similar planting schemes for the road medians and public buildings even before Gov. Brown made his call for reductions last week. Its a drop in the bucket, sure, but it is a start. I do think segments of the population are finally "getting it" in terms of the severity of the drought. What is frustrating is driving around at night and seeing city sprinklers shooting arcs of water onto blacktop, or spraying sides of walls, because they are malfunctioning or out of alignment. I imagine scenes like that make the message of conserving water easier to ignore for certain people-- which of course is a big problem.
I've personally been doing my part by not washing the outside of my car for the last 8 months. It isn't laziness if it is for a good cause, right?
Last night's very brief rainstorm reminded me of my car's true paint color and reset the clock on the Dustmobile's sexy drabness.
Grey Templar wrote: Anyway, while LA might not pull a large chunk of water they still have no business pulling what they do. Lawns should be illegal down there.
In the San Gabriel Valley (part of LA county) I am seeing a lot of people elect to let their lawns wither or swap the grass and non-native plants out for drought resistant and native plants. Some cities have also adopted similar planting schemes for the road medians and public buildings even before Gov. Brown made his call for reductions last week. Its a drop in the bucket, sure, but it is a start. I do think segments of the population are finally "getting it" in terms of the severity of the drought. What is frustrating is driving around at night and seeing city sprinklers shooting arcs of water onto blacktop, or spraying sides of walls, because they are malfunctioning or out of alignment. I imagine scenes like that make the message of conserving water easier to ignore for certain people-- which of course is a big problem.
I've personally been doing my part by not washing the outside of my car for the last 8 months. It isn't laziness if it is for a good cause, right?
Last night's very brief rainstorm reminded me of my car's true paint color and reset the clock on the Dustmobile's sexy drabness.
Why are there 'city sprinklers' in the first place and why the hell are they on during a drought?
Grey Templar wrote: Anyway, while LA might not pull a large chunk of water they still have no business pulling what they do. Lawns should be illegal down there.
In the San Gabriel Valley (part of LA county) I am seeing a lot of people elect to let their lawns wither or swap the grass and non-native plants out for drought resistant and native plants. Some cities have also adopted similar planting schemes for the road medians and public buildings even before Gov. Brown made his call for reductions last week. Its a drop in the bucket, sure, but it is a start. I do think segments of the population are finally "getting it" in terms of the severity of the drought. What is frustrating is driving around at night and seeing city sprinklers shooting arcs of water onto blacktop, or spraying sides of walls, because they are malfunctioning or out of alignment. I imagine scenes like that make the message of conserving water easier to ignore for certain people-- which of course is a big problem.
I've personally been doing my part by not washing the outside of my car for the last 8 months. It isn't laziness if it is for a good cause, right?
Last night's very brief rainstorm reminded me of my car's true paint color and reset the clock on the Dustmobile's sexy drabness.
Why are there 'city sprinklers' in the first place and why the hell are they on during a drought?
Because cities can afford to waste water. They can afford higher prices while farmers can't, so they win out on that, waste water, and drive the price up for farmers.
hotsauceman1 wrote: We may need to genetically modify crops man. Make it possible to grow with very little water
Grey Templar wrote: Because cities can afford to waste water. They can afford higher prices while farmers can't, so they win out on that, waste water, and drive the price up for farmers.
Actually, it's because city gardening programs are vast, often almost entirely unplanned (most resources are gifted by local land developers once they've sold off an estate) and maintained by very few people.
Grey Templar wrote: Because cities can afford to waste water. They can afford higher prices while farmers can't, so they win out on that, waste water, and drive the price up for farmers.
Actually, it's because city gardening programs are vast, often almost entirely unplanned (most resources are gifted by local land developers once they've sold off an estate) and maintained by very few people.
But by all means, carry on with rhetoric.
You do know thats not contradictory with what I said. I never gave a reason for them wasting water, just that they can afford to. They have no incentive to eliminate wasteful practices.
Grey Templar wrote: Anyway, while LA might not pull a large chunk of water they still have no business pulling what they do. Lawns should be illegal down there.
In the San Gabriel Valley (part of LA county) I am seeing a lot of people elect to let their lawns wither or swap the grass and non-native plants out for drought resistant and native plants. Some cities have also adopted similar planting schemes for the road medians and public buildings even before Gov. Brown made his call for reductions last week. Its a drop in the bucket, sure, but it is a start. I do think segments of the population are finally "getting it" in terms of the severity of the drought. What is frustrating is driving around at night and seeing city sprinklers shooting arcs of water onto blacktop, or spraying sides of walls, because they are malfunctioning or out of alignment. I imagine scenes like that make the message of conserving water easier to ignore for certain people-- which of course is a big problem.
I've personally been doing my part by not washing the outside of my car for the last 8 months. It isn't laziness if it is for a good cause, right?
Last night's very brief rainstorm reminded me of my car's true paint color and reset the clock on the Dustmobile's sexy drabness.
Why are there 'city sprinklers' in the first place and why the hell are they on during a drought?
Do the cities you've lived in not have plants or grasses on public spaces? If they do who waters them? Do citizens drag their hoses out to water municipal flora?
Grey Templar wrote: Anyway, while LA might not pull a large chunk of water they still have no business pulling what they do. Lawns should be illegal down there.
In the San Gabriel Valley (part of LA county) I am seeing a lot of people elect to let their lawns wither or swap the grass and non-native plants out for drought resistant and native plants. Some cities have also adopted similar planting schemes for the road medians and public buildings even before Gov. Brown made his call for reductions last week. Its a drop in the bucket, sure, but it is a start. I do think segments of the population are finally "getting it" in terms of the severity of the drought. What is frustrating is driving around at night and seeing city sprinklers shooting arcs of water onto blacktop, or spraying sides of walls, because they are malfunctioning or out of alignment. I imagine scenes like that make the message of conserving water easier to ignore for certain people-- which of course is a big problem.
I've personally been doing my part by not washing the outside of my car for the last 8 months. It isn't laziness if it is for a good cause, right?
Last night's very brief rainstorm reminded me of my car's true paint color and reset the clock on the Dustmobile's sexy drabness.
Why are there 'city sprinklers' in the first place and why the hell are they on during a drought?
Do the cities you've lived in not have plants or grasses on public spaces? If they do who waters them? Do citizens drag their hoses out to water municipal flora?
Edit: Let me rephrase. If its too dry for a plant to survive on its own, dont plant anything. Rocks can be quite decorative without using up any water or manpower.
Grey Templar wrote: Anyway, while LA might not pull a large chunk of water they still have no business pulling what they do. Lawns should be illegal down there.
In the San Gabriel Valley (part of LA county) I am seeing a lot of people elect to let their lawns wither or swap the grass and non-native plants out for drought resistant and native plants. Some cities have also adopted similar planting schemes for the road medians and public buildings even before Gov. Brown made his call for reductions last week. Its a drop in the bucket, sure, but it is a start. I do think segments of the population are finally "getting it" in terms of the severity of the drought. What is frustrating is driving around at night and seeing city sprinklers shooting arcs of water onto blacktop, or spraying sides of walls, because they are malfunctioning or out of alignment. I imagine scenes like that make the message of conserving water easier to ignore for certain people-- which of course is a big problem.
I've personally been doing my part by not washing the outside of my car for the last 8 months. It isn't laziness if it is for a good cause, right?
Last night's very brief rainstorm reminded me of my car's true paint color and reset the clock on the Dustmobile's sexy drabness.
Why are there 'city sprinklers' in the first place and why the hell are they on during a drought?
Do the cities you've lived in not have plants or grasses on public spaces? If they do who waters them? Do citizens drag their hoses out to water municipal flora?
It usually rains enough, more than enough, for sprinklers to not be necessary. And if it doesnt, you shouldnt be planting stuff that doesnt grow in the area in the first place.
