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

[Coelli]

Okay, after some digging the cisterns in Melbourne are just big rain barrels, not anything sophisticated or underground (and therefore expensive). The city of LA already has a $100 rain barrel rebate program; not sure if Calabasas has anything similar. But even something like that would go a long way.

Maybe it's because I live on a hill and in an area that floods; whenever it rains there's a visual reinforcement of how much water is actually falling and getting lost to the storm drains; and my back yard abuts a flood control channel/wash, so I see how much water is getting captured by the drains from the streets above us and sent further down. Even a short rainfall like yesterday's can get the water rushing behind my house. Surely capturing the water here is a better alternative than some of the other ones I've heard people propose like piping water from Seattle. (Who, as it turns out, is starting to have some water troubles of their own...)

 

[saf1]

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.

I have to dance around the rules of the board, well, we all do, but the HSR connection is funding. Just like previous propositions such as stem cell research. Return on investment... I guess my point of offence from one of the comments was "what" water. We are not in a perpetual drought in California. It does ebb and flow if you look at the history.

We as California don't get to say the sky is falling yet not do anything about it when we have over abundance of snow and rain. Thus the underlying resevior system that was put in place. You don't have to agree with my opinion but I'd at least like to think you understand the basic idea of common sense and math. Current damns and resevior hold this much capacity + increase in population year over year = an increase in water usage by x mount... In that I mean build up the infrastructure to hold when mother nature provides more. And not let the political system get in the way of developing it.

So the question at hand is really this. Is this an actual problem or one self created by the lobbyist / political system (i.e. think Enron...).

 

[Coelli]

I'm pretty sure if the HSR went up on the ballot again, with the actual current budget estimate (the private investors that were supposed to help fund it never appeared), and it was up against a bill improving our water infrastructure instead, the voters would likely choose water. At least, I would hope they would. The amount the HSR will cost is staggering at this point, it's vastly different than originally voted on and that money really is needed elsewhere. I mean, we're talking $100B here (originally $36B when approved). That's a LOT of money.

Other than perhaps paying more for water at the LFS, btw, the increase doesn't affect me much since I only have a 65g tank and buy my water (10 fresh/10 salt per week) from them. How it will affect them with the vast amounts of water they use is another story.

 

[acesq]

The answer to the question is there is an actual problem, and it is called climate change. Hopefully next winter we'll get that El Nino and it will be enough to stem the tide a bit, but I do believe that long term (decades+), we need to get used to lower precipitation in the western United States. I am not well enough informed to answer the question whether the existing reservoir/aquifer system in CA is large enough to support the needs of the population if we had sufficient precipitation, but I have read nothing to suggest that it isn't. And looking at the pictures of them at 20% capacity, I don't think building another hole in the ground today is going to help. I do agree with you that we tend to bury our heads in the sand and not make the hard choices, but everything, particularly climate change is so politicized that we can't get a consensus on the basic issue whether we need to spend money to deal with it. If I didn't make it clear, I am all in favor of spending what it takes to ensure we have the water we need, I just disagreed whether it is practical or possible to collect the little rainwater we do get.

 

[saf1]

The answer to the question is there is an actual problem, and it is called climate change. Hopefully next winter we'll get that El Nino and it will be enough to stem the tide a bit, but I do believe that long term (decades+), we need to get used to lower precipitation in the western United States. I am not well enough informed to answer the question whether the existing reservoir/aquifer system in CA is large enough to support the needs of the population if we had sufficient precipitation, but I have read nothing to suggest that it isn't. And looking at the pictures of them at 20% capacity, I don't think building another hole in the ground today is going to help. I do agree with you that we tend to bury our heads in the sand and not make the hard choices, but everything, particularly climate change is so politicized that we can't get a consensus on the basic issue whether we need to spend money to deal with it. If I didn't make it clear, I am all in favor of spending what it takes to ensure we have the water we need, I just disagreed whether it is practical or possible to collect the little rainwater we do get.

Climate change, interesting but unproven data debated by scientists world wide. That is a very volatile topic which I will not get into and one for which you and I may agree on. I will say though that the East coast doesn't see it that way with their current weather trend as other areas on the map.

Building infrastructure helps just by the nature of it. You have one cup, it rains during the course of the month, and the cup is full. What the cup doesn't hold it runs off into the various nooks and crannies of the earth. This would be streams, rivers, lakes, ocean, etc. The cup can only hold one cup. Now if we had two cups we just doubled our water storage by 100% and less water went into the nooks and crannies of the earth. Simple math My population comment is that it hasn't remained stagnant since the 30's. So again we look at our cups that hold water vs. population growth and can see clearly that we will use more. Green homes aside...

Now of course we have to get the environmentalist and tax payers on board but it really is that simple. California is a beautiful state but politically volatile and corrupt. Special interest groups only look to their own pocket book and not that of the tax payer. As a tax payer I get upset when we spend general funds on low return on investments.

It is like a opportunity to raise the cost of things people buy every day like lettuce, strawberries, or just food in general. I won't even go into water bills and electricity.

And before anyone even hints at it, this isn't a R or D or L debate, this is a issue for all tax payers and people who live in this state

 

[DasCamel]

Climate change, interesting but unproven data debated by scientists world wide. That is a very volatile topic which I will not get into and one for which you and I may agree on. I will say though that the East coast doesn't see it that way with their current weather trend as other areas on the map.

Building infrastructure helps just by the nature of it. You have one cup, it rains during the course of the month, and the cup is full. What the cup doesn't hold it runs off into the various nooks and crannies of the earth. This would be streams, rivers, lakes, ocean, etc. The cup can only hold one cup. Now if we had two cups we just doubled our water storage by 100% and less water went into the nooks and crannies of the earth. Simple math My population comment is that it hasn't remained stagnant since the 30's. So again we look at our cups that hold water vs. population growth and can see clearly that we will use more. Green homes aside...

Now of course we have to get the environmentalist and tax payers on board but it really is that simple. California is a beautiful state but politically volatile and corrupt. Special interest groups only look to their own pocket book and not that of the tax payer. As a tax payer I get upset when we spend general funds on low return on investments.

It is like a opportunity to raise the cost of things people buy every day like lettuce, strawberries, or just food in general. I won't even go into water bills and electricity.

And before anyone even hints at it, this isn't a R or D or L debate, this is a issue for all tax payers and people who live in this state

In the real scientific community the climate change of the last century and half isn't even a debate anymore. The ignorance of this is outstanding. Check your sources and research the matter. Climate change is real, the longer we bury our heads in the sand, the more we hurt future generations, including the reefs of our planet. Yes, the politics and BS science coming from special interests is killing the world we live in.

 

[PeterHall]

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.

The city of Los Angeles installed a 1.2 million gallon tank to collect runoff in temescal canyon. It is then pumped to the hyperion plant for treatment. Then out to the ocean. The money for digging holes in the ground is there. It just needs to be purposed properly.

 

[saf1]

In the real scientific community the climate change of the last century and half isn't even a debate anymore. The ignorance of this is outstanding. Check your sources and research the matter. Climate change is real, the longer we bury our heads in the sand, the more we hurt future generations, including the reefs of our planet. Yes, the politics and BS science coming from special interests is killing the world we live in.

We disagree. That is why I noted: That is a very volatile topic... I mean look at the news reel today and you will see an article published stating a new round of top scientists examining fiddled global warming data. Telegraph. AP also has a article. There are two for you. You want to know the kicker? Those experts on that panel will say something different. Doesn't prove I'm right and you are wrong. Just means people use the data to further their own agenda.

I will agree with you though that the world is changing. Of course. Humans advance and mother nature reels from it. But that shouldn't prevent anyone from say going nuclear (cleanest power source outside the sun) or say increasing water capacity by new damns or even desalination plants here or there.

Just be smart, think long term, and we're good. Oh, wait. That is right, the EPA...

 

[Jason G]

I live in the Central Valley of California in the heart of the agricultural lands. I was considering buying an R.O. unit but once the drought hit I decided against it. I myself cut back on watering my 1/2 acre of grass and landscape. Everything is now brown. I have also cut back on buying water from my LFS to help save water.

I have two family members that have R.O. units for their tanks and they use the wastewater for their lawns and plants outside. We are all doing our part here in California to save water, well most of us are. Lol

 

[acesq]

In the real scientific community the climate change of the last century and half isn't even a debate anymore. The ignorance of this is outstanding. Check your sources and research the matter. Climate change is real, the longer we bury our heads in the sand, the more we hurt future generations, including the reefs of our planet. Yes, the politics and BS science coming from special interests is killing the world we live in.

Agreed.

 

[alton]

Is it global warming or climate change? Or will be something new next week? Whenever a city grows by 10x it is common sense that the temp in the city will increase with 10x more cars, asphalt, concrete, air conditioner compressors and 98 degree heaters walking around. So what are you going to do finally control your population by stopping immigration, limiting families to one child? Good luck! Like someone said it is not worth the argument. Also water and agriculture go hand in hand, we have to eat.

 

[PIPSTER]

There's a couple of things that SoCal people are going to have to remember...

1. Most of Socal is a desert.
It always has, is, and always will be a desert. :twitch:

2. There's an awful lot of LA and surrounding areas that get their water from the Colorado River. California spends a fortune in water rights from other upstream states, namely Colorado. If it wasn't for this, Socal would not be particularly habitable, at least not for 15 million+ people. :eek1:

3. The protected Delta Smelt is going to be extinct. All the holding back the water has been in vain, hurting agriculture and worsening the effect of the "drought". (Droughts are kinda normal for a desert...just sayin'.)

4. Just now, they're cranking up some old de-salinators, but in the last 30-40 years, where have they been? :uhoh2:


Well, I just feel so sorry, I mean just this morning I got 1\2 inch of rain. I can't mow my foot tall grass in my yard because it's a swamp with 1\4" standing water. It has rained over a foot of water in 22 of the last 30 days here. :fish1:

 

[woodnaquanut]

1. Most of Socal is a desert.
It always has, is, and always will be a desert. :twitch:

You sure about that? 'Always' is a REALLY long time.

Part of the global warming predictions is changing weather patterns. Some places will be hotter, some colder, some wetter, some drier.

Warming also creates more instability - it's all about energy. Storms will be more frequent and stronger.

Any single data point is useless. Just like the Senator waving the snowball around and saying "See, no global warming here". It's all about trends and where they lead.

Glaciers are melting. Fast. Ice that took hundreds if not thousands of years to accumulate has melted in my lifetime. Something is going on.

Yes the climate has changed thru earth's history. What seems different now is the pace of the change.

 

[Coelli]

Well, I just feel so sorry, I mean just this morning I got 1\2 inch of rain. I can't mow my foot tall grass in my yard because it's a swamp with 1\4" standing water. It has rained over a foot of water in 22 of the last 30 days here. :fish1:

Really, what do snarky comments like this add to the discussion?

 

[saf1]

Really, what do snarky comments like this add to the discussion?

Not snarky, just staying that he has water, and that it rained. Heck, it rained in Northern Cali over the weekend. Driving home today looking over the skyline and I saw some snow still on the Sierra's.

Populations do factor in water consumption as well as infrastructure, and lack of. Look at Nevada with Las Vegas and Lake Mead. This is a classic case of area, weather, population growth, and tourism all balled together. We saw this in Northern Cali and Folsom building. They slowed down home developments due to going back and looking at population growth vs. water.

It is a hostile topic and politically charged. The mandates don't impact the reef hobby no more than they impact pool owners. As a normal citizen you should try and do your part when possible. And if you are using ri/ro water do what you can to use the waste.

Rest is up to each individual, family, and business.

 

[atreis]

4. Just now, they're cranking up some old de-salinators, but in the last 30-40 years, where have they been? :uhoh2:

Sitting idle and/or on the drawing board. In a market economy, if you're not paying the true price for something - factoring in the cost of future impacts - it's very hard to get people to pay more (water from de-salination) when the same thing can be had for less (water from the Colorado river).

 

[acesq]

Is it global warming or climate change? Or will be something new next week? Whenever a city grows by 10x it is common sense that the temp in the city will increase with 10x more cars, asphalt, concrete, air conditioner compressors and 98 degree heaters walking around. So what are you going to do finally control your population by stopping immigration, limiting families to one child? Good luck! Like someone said it is not worth the argument. Also water and agriculture go hand in hand, we have to eat.

Global warming and climate change are different terms describing the same phenomenon - the earth is warming and that causes changes to the climate. There should be no debate about this and the only reason there is is money. As captive reef keepers we all know the effect additions of CO2 have on our systems. That it is happening on a global scale should not be controversial to us. You seem to understand that paving paradise and putting up a parking lot will contribute to global warming, yet belittle the entire concept. You've confused me.

Your comments about immigration and population control are too offensive to respond to without engaging in a political debate, so I won't. "Control your population by stopping immigration"? Yikes!

 

[saf1]

Global warming and climate change are different terms describing the same phenomenon - the earth is warming and that causes changes to the climate. There should be no debate about this and the only reason there is is money. As captive reef keepers we all know the effect additions of CO2 have on our systems. That it is happening on a global scale should not be controversial to us. You seem to understand that paving paradise and putting up a parking lot will contribute to global warming, yet belittle the entire concept. You've confused me.

Your comments about immigration and population control are too offensive to respond to without engaging in a political debate, so I won't. "Control your population by stopping immigration"? Yikes!

You maybe taking those out of context as he asked "what are you going to do"...

I could be wrong though.

 

[acesq]

Yeah, I think you're wrong. As you were in your interpretation of the snarky comments. But I commend you for attempting to find a positive connotation in the comments. [emoji3]

 

[alton]

You maybe taking those out of context as he asked "what are you going to do"...

I could be wrong though.

You are correct, it is funny how some use parts of a article to start something, they left out the one kid part which like immigration will never happen. We are a country of immigrants and that will never change. If you go back to what scientist said back in the early 70's you will read how they thought at that time the world was cooling?