Forget about asteroids; the coming drought will do us in!

[ls99]

Welcome to the Internet. Please note that the California governor did NOT issue a new edict on long showers. He DID issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency, Executive Order B-29-15.

http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf

It's not nearly as fun or exciting to be outraged about as the BreitBart Report, though.

It's an emergency order under Sections 8567 and 8571 of the California Government Code to bypass the normal (very slow) procedures of various state agencies and telling them to Get On With It in implementing the cutbacks ordered last year.

The governor has previously directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 25 percent compared to calendar year 2013.

In the link's video, at about 27 sec mark, Governor Moonbeam in his own words says it effects how long people stay in their shower....... directive has force of law...... at around 51 sec says people can be fined five hundred dollars a day..... Maybe he did not read his own directive?

Edit Add: Perhaps I should not get wound up about a politician's on video statements v what they signed off.

 

[ArkTinkerer]

Well, after I posted that I decided to google around a bit. It looks like I was wrong, at least on a state level. Colorado appears to be the only state where it's against the law at the state level. I know personally that MD has restrictions at local levels, and have read quite a bit about similar laws in CA. TX is definitely on the collect it bandwagon, as are some others. Here's the most informative webpage I found regarding it, if anybody is interested. Rainwater harvesting regulations state by state | Rain water harvesting and slow sand water filters

I think it was CA that had the most strict grey water laws. See here:

Gray Water Policy Center

But yes, I had heard about laws on collecting storm run-off. This article is short on facts and big on fearmongering..

Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water - NaturalNews.com

 

[harley]

I think it was CA that had the most strict grey water laws. See here:

Gray Water Policy Center

But yes, I had heard about laws on collecting storm run-off. This article is short on facts and big on fearmongering..

Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water - NaturalNews.com

Wow! Not an actual fact to be found in that article. Usually when you read the comments on a blog, the followers are "ditto'ing" all over the place. The comments after this article are mostly calling BS on him. Quite surprising considering his is "internet's No. 1 natural health news website".

 

[REWahoo]

I think it was CA that had the most strict grey water laws. See here:

Gray Water Policy Center

But yes, I had heard about laws on collecting storm run-off. This article is short on facts and big on fearmongering..

Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water - NaturalNews.com

Just to be sure there is no confusion, grey water reuse and rain water collection are two entirely different animals.

 

[meierlde]

Note that Ca has still not completed installing water meters in homes. Until recently they had flat rates, in 2014 it was about 250k homes. The cities have until 2025 to install them, although I suspect the rate will speed up. It was noted that without water meters folks used 39% more water. (Also of course no way to monitor water usage, and a water meter is also a way to detect leaks).

 

[M Paquette]

In the link's video, at about 27 sec mark, Governor Moonbeam in his own words says it effects how long people stay in their shower....... directive has force of law...... at around 51 sec says people can be fined five hundred dollars a day..... Maybe he did not read his own directive?

Edit Add: Perhaps I should not get wound up about a politician's on video statements v what they signed off.

I am shocked, SHOCKED to hear that water use may affect water usage.

 

[Texas Proud]

I saw the interview with the governor.... and he did say that long showers were outlawed (not sure of the exact words, but that was the gist)....


I also remember the person doing the interview (do not remember her name) said that 80% of water usage in Cali was by farmers who make up 2% of the state GDP.... seems like an easy way to fix the problem... change the water rules... make the farmers pay a market rate.... why subsidize the farmers

 

[harley]

I saw the interview with the governor.... and he did say that long showers were outlawed (not sure of the exact words, but that was the gist)....


I also remember the person doing the interview (do not remember her name) said that 80% of water usage in Cali was by farmers who make up 2% of the state GDP.... seems like an easy way to fix the problem... change the water rules... make the farmers pay a market rate.... why subsidize the farmers

Or, make everybody pay a market rate. Talk about an easy fix.

 

[Greencheese]

Or, make everybody pay a market rate. Talk about an easy fix.

But then SOMEBODY has to give up SOMETHING. Everyone just wants it all, and they want it now!

 

[EastWest Gal]

California supplies about 80-90% of the fruits and nuts consumed in the US. 70% of the almond growers are small farmers. Paying market rates will put the small farmers out of business. And what are you going to eat? Probably good reasons to subsidize the farmers. What's more important? Food and people's livelihoods or green lawns and fountains?


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Texas Proud]

California supplies about 80-90% of the fruits and nuts consumed in the US. 70% of the almond growers are small farmers. Paying market rates will put the small farmers out of business. And what are you going to eat? Probably good reasons to subsidize the farmers. What's more important? Food and people's livelihoods or green lawns and fountains?


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

They were saying that the nuts take a lot more water to grow than other crops.... so yes, if they cannot grow them without paying market rates for their water they should go out of business.... this is a back door subsidy that cost other taxpayers....

And if water was at market rates, I bet that there would be fewer green lawns... you can price water on a scale... say $20 per 1,000 for the first 20K... $30 for the next 10, $50 for the next, $100 for the next.... so once you get past 60K or so the water is getting expensive... if you are really rich, you have a green lawn but you pay for it...

 

[bld999]

California supplies about 80-90% of the fruits and nuts consumed in the US. 70% of the almond growers are small farmers. Paying market rates will put the small farmers out of business. And what are you going to eat? Probably good reasons to subsidize the farmers. What's more important? Food and people's livelihoods or green lawns and fountains?


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

It's entirely possible for consumers to live without almonds. The same jobs and liveleyhood argument is frequently applied to coal use and mining, and if taken to heart, hurts the rest of us to help the few. Cal almond farmers need to figure out how to conserve, or transition to small water budget crops.
I realize almonds are tremendously profitable, and the problem is not trivial.

 

[HFWR]

Perhaps a phase-in of higher rates for agricultural use would be less disruptive.

 

[MichaelB]

Price is one way to allocate a resource, but it tends to work better in those situations where consumers and producers alike have options and both enjoy relatively similar ability to influence the marketplace. Water does not fit these criteria very well.

 

[EastWest Gal]

I apologize for killing this thread. I am curious what your reactions are to my post.

Yes, I have a personal interest here. 10 days ago I walked on the land I now partially own, my family purchased 120 years ago, which supported my family until my dad and his sisters sought other sources of income. The orchard allowed my aunt to survive, given she went bankrupt due and had SS income of <$8000/yr and the farm income was greater than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[NW-Bound]

Note that Ca has still not completed installing water meters in homes. Until recently they had flat rates, in 2014 it was about 250k homes. The cities have until 2025 to install them, although I suspect the rate will speed up. It was noted that without water meters folks used 39% more water. (Also of course no way to monitor water usage, and a water meter is also a way to detect leaks).

I was surprised to learn this, so searched the Web for more info. Indeed, there are still some towns in CA where water meters still have not been installed. Amazing!

What was also surprising to me was that in cities where meters got installed, water consumption dropped only 10%. I would expect a lot more. So, it was good that people did not waste water as much as I would assume, when it was "all you can eat".

 

[aja8888]

We lived in southern California during the drought of the 1980s and were on rationing for quite a while. I remember calculating the flow out of all my lawn sprinkler heads and reducing the flow in some to optimize the systems. We cut water use in 1/2 doing that one exercise.

That's where most of the water is going as everything is being watered and in a drought, even more so.

 

[Texas Proud]

I apologize for killing this thread. I am curious what your reactions are to my post.

Yes, I have a personal interest here. 10 days ago I walked on the land I now partially own, my family purchased 120 years ago, which supported my family until my dad and his sisters sought other sources of income. The orchard allowed my aunt to survive, given she went bankrupt due and had SS income of <$8000/yr and the farm income was greater than that.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

I think that over time things change.... a subsidy that was established 100 or so years ago just does not make sense today... small farmers just have to either adjust or go out of business.... look at all the small businesses that Walmart and other like them have destroyed... heck, it is hard to find a grocery store that is not owned by a big corporation...

So, I am sorry that the land cannot support you or your family any more... but why should that create a liability for all taxpayers

At my old job my boss' parents owned a farm... gvmt paid his dad not to farm... dad died... mom never intended to farm, but kept being paid not to farm for over 30 years.... I was always surprised at how son kept talking down gvmt payments and how high his taxes were when his mom was getting a pretty large check for doing nothing...

 

[rodi]

I guess it's a good thing that our in-progress master bath bathroom remodel includes a diverter from the shower and bathtub upstairs to a grey water system. And while the remodel is in progress, I'm using our outdoor beach shower - which is already greywater and waters our camelias, bouganvilla, and lemon trees. The new system will water our (currently brown) lawn. And our planned laundry greywater system (planned for next year) will water our other fruit trees and the hedges and groundcover in our front yard.

When we had our last drought the water department was doing information meetings at large employers - including my former employer. One of the statistics was that 70% of the tap water in SoCal went to irrigation and pools. I was shocked... what a waste of pottable water.

 

[aja8888]

We had a long and severe drought in Texas two years ago. Half the state areas that had trees burned to the ground. Lots of cattle and pig farmers went bust as did crop farmers. We were on rationing in Houston (known as a great swamp). We survived. California will too.

 

[ERD50]

It's entirely possible for consumers to live without almonds. .... Cal almond farmers need to figure out how to conserve, or transition to small water budget crops.
I realize almonds are tremendously profitable, and the problem is not trivial.

I got curious about making my own 'almond milk' about a year ago, but I got rather turned off to the idea when I read it takes a gallon of water to produce a single almond. Gets pretty crazy.

Here's a decent article that gets to some of the 'tragedy of the commons' aspect.

Farming in California's drought: 'Almonds take more total water than any other crop' | The Splendid Table

Price is one way to allocate a resource, but it tends to work better in those situations where consumers and producers alike have options and both enjoy relatively similar ability to influence the marketplace. Water does not fit these criteria very well.

Why not? We could get almonds or almond substitutes from areas with more plentiful water. The low water areas could move to less water demanding crops.

It looks like about 75% of the CA almond crop is exported overseas. I think we'll manage, and I think the rest of the world can develop almond orchards somewhere, or use substitutes.

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainab...uses-over-250-more-water-all-los-angeles.html

Perhaps a phase-in of higher rates for agricultural use would be less disruptive.

Yep - even though the rules might be crazy, it's disruptive to just pull the rug out from someone who is playing by the rules. Phase in can be a workable compromise.

California supplies about 80-90% of the fruits and nuts consumed in the US. 70% of the almond growers are small farmers. Paying market rates will put the small farmers out of business. ...

You could use that argument for the buggy whip makers. Hey, times change. People need to adapt.

And what are you going to eat? Probably good reasons to subsidize the farmers. What's more important? Food and people's livelihoods or green lawns and fountains?

No, I don't think it is a good reason to subsidize farmers at all. It is a good reason to let the market set the price of things. Production will naturally move to the areas where it is most efficient. It's not food or lawns, we can be smarter about it than that.

There's no free lunch (how appropriate for this discussion!), we can pay more through an inefficient subsidy system, or let market forces decide the prices/production. Seems like the second way will have less effect on prices, and no one will starve from this. Running the water supply dry seems more likely to cause food shortages than moving crop production to meet water supplies.

BTW, one side of my family were farmers, I spent most of my youth on a family farm. I don't think farmers are any more deserving of subsidies than anyone else trying to support their families. And subsidies are just taking from one group and giving to another. No thanks.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

We had a long and severe drought in Texas two years ago. Half the state areas that had trees burned to the ground. Lots of cattle and pig farmers went bust as did crop farmers. We were on rationing in Houston (known as a great swamp). We survived. California will too.

agreed I actually live in the bit of the hill country still under exceptional drought. Have had address based watering for 4 or 5 years. (But I don't water at all, let the grass turn brown, since its native grass it comes back when it rains.) One year did not mow grass at all other years once or twice.
That of course is the advantage of native plants, the drought in Tx was no worse than the 1950s.

 

[aja8888]

I got curious about making my own 'almond milk' about a year ago, but I got rather turned off to the idea when I read it takes a gallon of water to produce a single almond. Gets pretty crazy.

Here's a decent article that gets to some of the 'tragedy of the commons' aspect.

Farming in California's drought: 'Almonds take more total water than any other crop' | The Splendid Table




-ERD50

You should have kept reading and read the comments by the Almond Board of California:

"Do almonds use 10 percent of California’s total water supply? The short answer is no.

This myth, which we’ve heard a few times in the media, seems to trace back to a Slate article from last May. Its author generally engages in a thoughtful and nuanced discussion of California’s water use. He notes that almonds are an important economic contributor in the state and that all foods require water, including some that are far more water intensive than almonds."

Link to article:

No, Almonds Don’t Use 10 Percent of California’s Water | Almond Board of California

 

[meierlde]

You should have kept reading and read the comments by the Almond Board of California:

"Do almonds use 10 percent of California’s total water supply? The short answer is no.

This myth, which we’ve heard a few times in the media, seems to trace back to a Slate article from last May. Its author generally engages in a thoughtful and nuanced discussion of California’s water use. He notes that almonds are an important economic contributor in the state and that all foods require water, including some that are far more water intensive than almonds."

Link to article:

No, Almonds Don’t Use 10 Percent of California’s Water | Almond Board of California

In particular rice and alfafa. In addition Ca grows some corn, which grows better further east. Interestingly these crops are decreasing in area right now due to the drought. It should be noted that the US is the predominate supplier of almonds for the world.

 

[NW-Bound]

The claim that almond growers consume 10% of CA's water was disputed to be lower at around 3%. But I was surprised to learn that almonds, in fact all nuts, use a lot of water.

The claim of 1 gal of water per single almond may be way too low, according to another source that I found. It is said that it takes 1919 gal of water to get 1 lb of almond. Given that an almond is about 1.2 grams, there are 378 pieces in a pound, and that means 1919/378 = 5 gal of water per almond!

If you are curious, here's a sample list of how much water our food needs for growing.

Beverages

Coffee: 1056 gal of water/gal of brewed coffee.
Beer: 296 gal of water/gal of beer​

Meat

Beef: 1847 gal of water/lb of meat
Pork: 718 gal/lb
Chicken: 518 gal/lb
​

Protein

Beef: 29.6 gal of water/gram of protein
Chicken: 9 gal/gram
Bean/lentil: 5 gal/gram
​

Nuts

Almond: 1919 gal of water/lb
Walnut: 1112 gal/lb​

Fruits

Plum: 261 gal of water/lb
Peach: 109 gal/lb
Orange: 67 gal/lb
Strawberry: 50 gal/lb​

Vegetable

Asparagus: 258 gal of water/lb
Broccoli/Cauliflower: 34 gal/lb
Tomato: 26 gal/lb
Lettuce: 28 gal/lb​

Oil

Olive oil: 1739 gal of water/lb
Corn oil: 309 gal/lb
​

So, to save water we should drink less coffee and more beer, eat more bean and chicken and less beef, eat peanuts and no walnuts nor almonds, more oranges and strawberries and fewer plums, no olive oil but more corn oil, and loads of tomatoes and lettuce.

Of course coffee is all imported from tropical countries while most beers are locally produced, so we really should drink more coffee and less beer.

Source: This Is How Much Water It Takes To Make Your Favorite Foods