How will the new CA mandates affect reefers in the state?

[acesq]

Lake to me means natural. To be fair I'd call that a reservoir. It is retagged as a Lake on lots of marketing stuff. That reservoir feeds water to the CA Aqueduct, water for LA and farming. It's part of a 400 mile long system. Largest producer and consumer of electricity in CA.



The boating and recreation aspects are, some argue, just the misdirect for the public.

Lake Mead is going be upset that it has been demoted to a reservoir!! As will many other lakes in the west. Jokes aside, the reduced water level in ALL California lakes reservoirs, rivers and streams is sad indeed. Hopefully this winter we get the El Niño we've been predicted to get the last two or three years.

 

[GreshamH]

El Nino has been a real thorn in their side... its been coming and going, but never a full event.. from what I have read. A friend of mine is a paleoclimatologist, El Nino is is "go" time.

 

[PIPSTER]

Time to re-purpose the swimming pool to become a shark tank. :dance:


Gives an excuse to fill it.:eek1::beer::celeb1:

Or a skatepark. :lol:

 

[GreshamH]

77 all over again... (to those that know what I'm talking about :lol: )

 

[OrQidz]

I remember those "if it's yellow...." days all too well!

 

[Indymann99]

Been there, done that..

 

[ucdcrew]

FWIW - last year my water district enacted water restrictions with fines, amounting to a 25% mandatory reduction. If you used more than 75% of the last years water bill from the same month, the fine started at 150 dollars, and increased from there. There was a clause written in to maintain aquatic life - which includes coral and fish.
On another note, we just had a snow survey at the end of March, and they couldn't ski the course. Had to fly from site to site in a helicopter.

 

[silentscream]

FWIW - last year my water district enacted water restrictions with fines, amounting to a 25% mandatory reduction. If you used more than 75% of the last years water bill from the same month, the fine started at 150 dollars, and increased from there. There was a clause written in to maintain aquatic life - which includes coral and fish.
On another note, we just had a snow survey at the end of March, and they couldn't ski the course. Had to fly from site to site in a helicopter.

Curious, where in the motherlode are you?

 

[fortress]

I have been using my RODI wastewater for irrigation purpose for a couple of years now. I do not see any evidence this is harmful to my already drought tolerant landscaping. My concern is the amount of water I must make. 2 gallons a day minimum are lost from my system. Warmer days, air conditioning etc. increase that number more than 1-1/2 times. I am interested in reducing the amount of evaporation.

 

[saf1]

It is bullsh!t most of what is going on in the state these days. Everyone knows it yet they take the oppertunity to increase rates and fine. Weather in Cali ebbs and flows no pun intended but we have been here before. In fact with the very same governor....

Have to ask the question though has to why we didn't increase capacity when we had the chance or build more reservoirs. Nope. We didn't and as a result a few years back almost busted Folsom damns out takes as we had to release so much too quick....

Not trying to be political but weather is only one tiny piece. Lack of proper planning and general funds on infrastructure is the issue along with environmentalist....

 

[acesq]

Build more reservoirs to store what??? Did you notice the level of the existing reservoirs? No rain, no water to store.

 

[Coelli]

It rained in LA today! And of course all that water ran right into the storm drains and out to the ocean. My community is fighting against the High Speed Rail project which is now proposing an alternate route to what was voted on; the new route would tunnel through the Angeles National Forest and under the Tujunga Wash, which among other things feeds into LA's water supply.

So how about we ditch the HSR, which has changed drastically from the original proposal on the ballot, and also has increased exponentially in cost, take the money, and put it into water retention infrastructure? Apparently even with the reduced amounts of rainfall we've had, enough rain falls on the city to supply over half of what we use. Kind of makes sense to capture it instead of letting it drain to the ocean, doesn't it?

 

[acesq]

Except there was no runoff whatsoever from the trace amount of rain. I'm not sure you are considering the cost/benefit of trying to collect more of the very limited amount of rain that we get. Conservation is the only option today. An El Niño next year will go a long way toward fixing the issue, but if climate change means less rain in the long term then conservation and desalinization (which is incredibly costly) are what we will be left with. Water will be an expensive commodity in the Southland.

 

[Coelli]

Except there was no runoff whatsoever from the trace amount of rain. I'm not sure you are considering the cost/benefit of trying to collect more of the very limited amount of rain that we get. Conservation is the only option today. An El Niño next year will go a long way toward fixing the issue, but if climate change means less rain in the long term then conservation and desalinization (which is incredibly costly) are what we will be left with. Water will be an expensive commodity in the Southland.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/...-of-fresh-water-flow-straight-into-the-ocean/

"Why make freshwater when we could collect the water that falls from the sky? Even on the driest year in recorded history in 2013, it still rained 3.6 inches in Los Angeles. An inch of rainfall in L.A. generates 3.8 billion gallons of runoff, so you’re talking about more than 12 billion gallons of water that could be captured, but that flows within hours down our concrete streets and into the ocean. There’s enough rainwater to be harvested to produce 30-50% of the entire city’s water needs."

I live on a hill and in today's rain, the street was flooded at the bottom; and there was so much water coming down as I was driving on the 118 that between the rain and the water on the road visibility was almost too bad to drive. All of that water is being wasted. All of it.

 

[acesq]

From your reference:
"A living case study is Australia, which went from the second largest per-capita water user in the world (behind the U.S.) to one of the most efficient, in large part through a concerted effort to install millions of cisterns across their cities in just about five years. Melbourne was able to get 35% of all its homes to install cisterns. The same thing is possible in Los Angeles and any city in California."
So when are you installing your cistern? And where? And at what cost? I don't see it happening. Even if somehow the government could pay for property owner to install cisterns in 35% of the homes in LA (can you imagine the fight over how to raise the money), the ultimate cost of the water will be very high.

 

[saf1]

Build more reservoirs to store what??? Did you notice the level of the existing reservoirs? No rain, no water to store.

Water...

Check Folsom's history in regards to water levels then we'll talk. Last I checked it was a low rain/snow pack for only 4 years, not 100 /sigh. You increase capacity during these years to hold when the snow pack is higher. Otherwise it just rolls on by and enters the river and ocean. Last I checked we had

Look at the reservoir system, when built, and then when the last one was built. You have to hold the water when it is available. Not everything has to be a state or federal emergency to get something done. And when it is done during those times it is 10x more expensive.

Maybe California should have built up our water storage infrastructure rather than wasting billions on the high speed rail to nowhere.

Edit: And don't blame the rice farmers up North. Over the years they have refined their system ten fold over.

 

[silentscream]

And how big of a cistern do you need to install on your property? A family of 4 in San Francisco (a city known for its frugal use of water) would use over 6,000 gallons a month. They don't even have yards that they irrigate like we do living in the valley. Households in the Sacramento region can use more like 20,000 gallons in a month. Let's cut those numbers down. The easiest and cheapest solution we have is education of the public for conservation.

 

[Coelli]

Or perhaps we divert our storm drains to water treatment facilities? Why the knee-jerk against capturing rainwater? So much doom and gloom!

My family already killed the lawns in front and back; we never watered them after moving in (and they were small to begin with).. We don't water any of the landscaping. Other than not flushing as much and timing showers, there's not much more we can do to conserve water. At some point all households will be there.

It makes no sense to let all of that rainfall just wash away.

acesq, perhaps the money from the HSR could help to defray the cost of cisterns for homes where it makes sense? Or an alternative could be found? But I'm not sure why you're so opposed to rainwater collection.

 

[acesq]

No doom and gloom, just being practical. I am all for saving water, limiting agricultural and industrial use (particularly fracking, which uses millions of gallons a year) as much as residential use and improving the infrastructure to better collect, treat and deliver what little water we have. Building private cisterns all over the place I don't see happening. You are to be commended for reducing your water use so much, but drive around the city and see how few have done the same. We need to pick the low hanging fruit before we consider a multi billion dollar rain water collection project. If 35% of the people removed their laws and xeriscaped we would be much better off without spending much at all. If we ripped up the concrete lining of the LA river, much of the wasted runoff would be allowed to percolate into the soil and help recharge the aquifers, but City Hall cant even take that simple step. We aren't going to spend the money to build tens of thousands of cisterns anytime soon.

I get that you don't want HSR and it may be a huge waste of money, but it is so unrelated to the drought, trading it for rainwater collection is a pipe dream. That is either going to happen or not based on the politics, not the drought.

 

[Coelli]

No doom and gloom, just being practical. I am all for saving water, limiting agricultural and industrial use (particularly fracking, which uses millions of gallons a year) as much as residential use and improving the infrastructure to better collect, treat and deliver what little water we have. Building private cisterns all over the place I don't see happening. You are to be commended for reducing your water use so much, but drive around the city and see how few have done the same. We need to pick the low hanging fruit before we consider a multi billion dollar rain water collection project. If 35% of the people removed their laws and xeriscaped we would be much better off without spending much at all. If we ripped up the concrete lining of the LA river, much of the wasted runoff would be allowed to percolate into the soil and help recharge the aquifers, but City Hall cant even take that simple step. We aren't going to spend the money to build tens of thousands of cisterns anytime soon.

I get that you don't want HSR and it may be a huge waste of money, but it is so unrelated to the drought, trading it for rainwater collection is a pipe dream. That is either going to happen or not based on the politics, not the drought.

Oh, I get it for sure - I also think injection wells are a huge waste of water. I'm not against the HSR on principle, but tunneling it right through the Tujunga watershed just seems like a really bad idea. I don't think private cisterns is the answer either and a single household surely couldn't provide a household with its annual water needs. However, capturing and diverting the water from storm drains (along with private rain barrels for minimal landscaping needs) could go a LONG way toward increasing our available water. Desalinization is very costly as you mentioned; so why not catch that water before it hits the ocean?

Going to read up on the Melbourne cisterns thing because I have a feeling we're missing some of the details.

By the way, a young couple bought a house on my cul-de-sac about 3 years ago. One of the first things they did was cut down a 40-year-old Brazillian pepper tree and put in a nice green lawn. On a slope. In a neighborhood where cacti and agave grow wild. Yep.