LA Water Conservation

[fskimospy]

Does it matter? Are we really running with eskimostooge's smoke screen?

Temecula is a pretty wealthy region. I've of course been there many times. I live in Los Angeles. It's a few hours away. Chances are pretty good I've been there more often than some dipshit in New York who's too dumb to know the only reason he's been there (if he isn't lying, like is is about 'plenty' of the other cities) is it's a tourist destination. (Hint: Compton isn't.)

My impression of it is: it's a hell of a nice place, as a wine region would tend to be. Not the greatest place on earth, sure... but a damn sight more desirable than fucking San Pablo or... just about the whole list of 'most liberal' except possibly Emeryville or the upscale areas of San Francisco.

Temecula's median income is $78,000. St. Paul's for example is $67,000.

I used to live about an hour away from Temecula for about ten years. It was the place that tons of people bought homes in if they couldn't afford a house in San Diego proper. Because it was such a destination for home buying it was caught up in the subprime mortgage crisis and some huge percentage of the homes there were foreclosed on. The real estate market still hasn't recovered.

It's a terrible tourist destination, their wines are not very good, especially compared to wineries in other areas of California, the town is soulless, and its only virtue is that it is close to several major cities so that you can leave it to do something actually interesting (or flee your foreclosed home)

All that barely matters anyway. You randomly picked a bunch of places and declared that conservatism was better based on nothing. You appears to be arguing that because wealthy people tend to be more conservative that conservatism is more productive, which is a non sequitur.

The percentage of GDP generated in those areas is very small. I wouldn't be surprised if New York's GDP alone is greater than all of those conservative places combined.

 

[Brovane]

I thought this thread was about water conservation in LA......

 

[theeedude]

This may have something to do with the price difference...

You would expect, all things being equal, that people would refuse to pay CA prices and buy in Houston. But all things aren't equal.

 

[cabri]

The Colorado river is in CALIFORNIA too. Some rivers actually flow in more than 1 state you know, and the intake is in CALIFORNIA.

Also only as small portion of the water used in SoCal comes from the colorado river.

The Colorado flows from Colorado, through Utah, Arizona and Nevada.

By the time it gets to the Gulf of California (if at all) there is no water flowing.

The water levels are not fed by the last two states.

And California DRAINS the last drops of it. Previously it flowed enough to make it to the Gulf.

So it is not California provided/originated water.

the state needs to figure out how to recycle all its water, capture and reuse, not waste

 

[DCal430]

The Colorado flows from Colorado, through Utah, Arizona and Nevada.

By the time it gets to the Gulf of California (if at all) there is no water flowing.

The water levels are not fed by the last two states.

And California DRAINS the last drops of it. Previously it flowed enough to make it to the Gulf.

So it is not California provided/originated water.

the state needs to figure out how to recycle all its water, capture and reuse, not waste

WOW, you really are stupid. You need to look at map. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Again the aquaduct that takes water from the colorado river to socal is ENTIRELY in California. The colorado river flows through California too. Look at a damn map before you post because you are being stupid. FYI The Aquauduct is fed by the CALIFORNIA side of the Parker dam. Half of Lake Havasu is in California.


As I previously mentioned as well the Colorado river represent only a tiny percent of California water use. The real problem is the state spends billions to move water from the northern part of the state to southern part. We in the north engage in more water conservation and restrictions, while socal steals all of water.

 

[cabri]

WOW, you really are stupid. You need to look at map. You really have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Again the aquaduct that takes water from the colorado river to socal is ENTIRELY in California. The colorado river flows through California too. Look at a damn map before you post because you are being stupid. FYI The Aquauduct is fed by the CALIFORNIA side of the Parker dam. Half of Lake Havasu is in California.


As I previously mentioned as well the Colorado river represent only a tiny percent of California water use. The real problem is the state spends billions to move water from the northern part of the state to southern part. We in the north engage in more water conservation and restrictions, while socal steals all of water.

Water is collected, not sourced. Source of the water comes from from Colorado, Utah and Arizona.

CA is a user of the water, not a sourcer.

Does SoCal steal the water or pay for the water?
I will agree that they misuse what water they have both natural and imported

There is little input to the river from California.

 

[DCal430]

Water is collected, not sourced. Source of the water comes from from Colorado, Utah and Arizona.

CA is a user of the water, not a sourcer.

Does SoCal steal the water or pay for the water?
I will agree that they misuse what water they have both natural and imported

There is little input to the river from California.

While it isn't the source of the river, it does flow through California.

They don't pay for our water, they just take it. 90% of the water from the state is from the sierras and cascades in northern California. So we have the California aquaduct to move the water to SoCal. Now they want to spend billions of the so called water tunnels to move more water.

Look at what happen to mono lake, destroyed. They killed the lake by draining it to death.

 

[DCal430]

What is good is last year at the mountain base here in Cali we had less than 1 foot of snow, now the snow depth is almost 5 feet at the base.

 

[piasabird]

Conserving the water you already have costs less than importing water from another state. Making a larger storm drain costs lots of money.

 

[Fern]

In a lot of places a ton of the water is lost due to old leaky water mains/ pipes and such.

Does anybody know if CA has that problem too? Have they done anything about it?

Fern

 

[hal2kilo]

There are some interesting water conservation experiments and studies going on in and around LA, the concrete wasteland. Take a look at this article. It is very interesting. It is strange that you don't hear about this on the

news.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/los-angeles-city-of-water.html?_r=1

“Governance is probably the biggest obstacle to a sustainable water supply,” Mark Pestrella, who heads flood control for the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, told me.

The project tries to look at LA more as a watershed than a desert or a flood plain. If California could reduce the amount of water they import they could achieve significant savings every year.

When I lived in Orange county, I saw an excellent documentary on the public access channel, describing all the things the county was doing to maintain existing aquifers and protect them from salt intrusion due to drawing too much water from the acquifers. Running out of edit window... fn nook... Among several other things they are reinjecting treated sewage into a line of wells about 10 miles inland to act as a barrier to the salt water. It waswas very interesting and informative.

 

[K1052]

In a lot of places a ton of the water is lost due to old leaky water mains/ pipes and such.

Does anybody know if CA has that problem too? Have they done anything about it?

Fern

The entire US has this problem to differing degrees. Water main replacement programs have lagged behind (sometimes FAR behind) expected life of existing infrastructure.

 

[DCal430]

One thing in California in a lot areas water mains and distribution is controlled by private companies. So they care about profit not upgrading infrastructure. This is the problem with the mass privatization of the utilities in the U.S.

 

[DCal430]

Remember private companies will allow disaster and even deaths from accident's rather than spend money to upgrade.

 

[Nebor]

Does Zaap think that conservatism causes people to get wealthy? Please take a look at the gulf states. Wealth causes people to get conservative.

 

[cabri]

One thing in California in a lot areas water mains and distribution is controlled by private companies. So they care about profit not upgrading infrastructure. This is the problem with the mass privatization of the utilities in the U.S.

People did not want to foot the bill to provide the water via local taxes and pay for the amount of infrastructure that was needed to support it when outside the area.

NIMBY syndrome

 

[DCal430]

Some areas are worst they actually sold the rights to private companies to be the sole distributor and provider of water for the local people. Here in the 1980s the county entered in 50 year license agreement with a private company to be sole provider of distrubor of water for the urban arras.

Horrible, the government here needs to use ED to seize these private companies assets and provide water directly.

 

[Fern]

One thing in California in a lot areas water mains and distribution is controlled by private companies. So they care about profit not upgrading infrastructure. This is the problem with the mass privatization of the utilities in the U.S.

I'm having trouble verifying this.

Yes, technically they are private companies, but all I find are organized as mutual companies, meaning they are owned by the homeowners they serve. If so, the likelihood of "profit motive" is severely restricted (only owners who rent could have a profit motive).

Fern

 

[Fern]

Some areas are worst they actually sold the rights to private companies to be the sole distributor and provider of water for the local people. Here in the 1980s the county entered in 50 year license agreement with a private company to be sole provider of distrubor of water for the urban arras.

Horrible, the government here needs to use ED to seize these private companies assets and provide water directly.

That sounds a lot more like the public company (i.e., the govt entity, whether city or county) contracted out with a private firm to run the operation. I.e., the local govt still owns all the assets. I would think the local govt also has control over capital projects (expansion or major repairs).

Fern

 

[DCal430]

That sounds a lot more like the public company (i.e., the govt entity, whether city or county) contracted out with a private firm to run the operation. I.e., the local govt still owns all the assets. I would think the local govt also has control over capital projects (expansion or major repairs).

Fern

The private company paid the government money to be the sole provider of a utility.

No not here and much of California. The private company owns the assets. The government owns nothing. One of the big ones is American Water.

It is like any other private utility such as electricity or natural gas.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm quite disappointed at the turn this thread took. Why are people discussing the OP when they should be measuring the average lengths of their city's penis?