6 ms·

Unbelievable the amount of bullshit happening here and I don't understand how so few people seem to know about it or care. Urban water use is such a tremendousl

Unbelievable the amount of bullshit happening here and I don't understand how so few people seem to know about it or care. Urban water use is such a tremendously small percentage of total water use, and they try to fix the problem by telling people to take shorter showers and flush the toilet less.

marze 10y ago
What percentage? Under 1%? Of that, the lawn gets a lot more than showers, or more ridiculously, a glass of water.
- dgacmu 10y ago
  20% urban: https://www.kcet.org/commentary/drought-by-the-numbers-where-does-california-water-go https://www.kcet.org/commentary/drought-by-the-numbers-where... (that's residential + business + government). For residential, "Landscaping accounts for nearly half of all residential water use." Notably, most of the restrictions were on watering lawns, which isn't crazy as one part of a bigger picture water conservation strategy. It's not going to work miracles, but it could conceivably cut total statewide water use by 1-2%. (With a goal to cut statewide water use by 20%, that's not actually an insignificant amount. Obviously, there's a ton of agricultural use remaining to be reduced.) The Palo Alto restrictions, for example: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47322 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/473... Several of these make sense: 2. Flooding or runoff is prohibited. 3. A shut-off valve is required for hoses used to wash vehicles, buildings, etc. 4. Applying water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. 5. Water in fountains or other decorative water feature must be recirculated. 6. Irrigating outdoors is prohibited during and within 48 hours after a measurable rainfall. 9. Irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians is prohibited. 10. Landscape irrigation for new development must comply with state and local building codes. 11. Leaks must be fixed as soon as possible. Some are fairly stupid: 7. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    Your source for 20% says that 20% is a "conventional estimate" and doesn't seem to provide a source for that estimate. It seems pretty high compared to other numbers I've seen.
    - dgacmu 10y ago
      Acknowledged - I didn't shop around carefully for primary sources for my link. I think the overall point holds even if you drop it to 10%, though -- there's probably 1% of overall water use to be trimmed through the more-effective residential cutbacks. (It's worth distinguishing between potable and non-potable water in these analyses, though, because from a municipal perspective, there are additional benefits to keeping a cap on potable water use.)
  - greeneggs 10y ago
    > Some are fairly stupid: 7. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. I think the idea is to raise awareness of the problem, especially among tourists. Or maybe restaurants just prefer not to have to set water out, so they can sell more drinks? Either way, I can't say it bothers me much.
    - fiatmoney 10y ago
      "Raising awareness" is stupid. What are they supposed to do in response, and how much water would that save?
    - hueving 10y ago
      Why would anyone care about raising awareness among tourists? They are amongst the smallest users of water (only in the state for a short period, no lawn to water, no crops to grow).
    - rhino369 10y ago
      As a tourist in SF in last January what exactly could I have done to help the situation? Buy a rice farm and shut it down? Drinking tap water is the most efficient use of water possible.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  According to this [1] about 10%. Their goal was to reduce urban use by 25%, meaning a total reduction of 2.5%. [1] http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108
2PetitsVerres 10y ago
I don't really know what are the exact regulations, but I've read the article. It says: > The rules do not apply to agriculture, which is covered by different regulations and makes up the bulk of water use in the state. Cuts in supply based on seniority were imposed in the last year. Some of them have been rolled back already as water has become more available. Doesn't that mean that there are also regulation on the agriculture part of water consumption?
- thephyber 10y ago
  Water rights is complicated in California. The movie Chinatown was a "based on true events" kind of deal relating to California water rights when the state was going through growing pains in the post-WW1 boom. The best I can figure, water rights (basically a contract which establishes how much water you have a right to use from which surface water sources) has to do with seniority. In 2015, the state regulators adjusted the coefficients in an effort to prevent starvation of downstream water rights[1]. I don't know how residential water districts compete with legacy water rights ownership, but I do know that residential water districts for the vast majority of the state's population get their water from just a small handful of inland reservoirs. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-restrictions-on-water-use-by-farmers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-re...
  - rconti 10y ago
    This is the absolute best long read I've seen on the Colorado River and California water rights. Interestingly, many forms of water conservation for agriculture actually have a negative impact. If farmers keep the same allocation but use it more efficiently, they're able to grow more, and there's less runoff so less groundwater recharge and less return to the river. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-disappearing-river http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-disappearin...
thephyber 10y ago
I still don't understand this argument. Yes, it matters that residents use less water than prior to the drought -- at least a lot more than you give it credit. The residential water reservoir system in California isn't being plundered by Big Agri, Big Ranch, Big Bottled Water, or Big Frack. Yes, those things use most of the water in the state. No, the vast majority of that water would not otherwise make it into an existing reservoir that supplies residents. It would make it into a non-reservoir body of water or it would help replenish the water table (which is what they were using until this winter). There is a finite volume of reservoir space and it currently takes several years to build new ones. There is a fixed and finite amount of surface area upstream of those reservoirs that collect and consolidate rainwater into the reservoirs. Average long-term usage by a slightly growing population (at least until recently) is still outpacing long-term replenishment rates of those reservoirs. Yes, when California urban residents get fined for running their sprinklers mid-day, it helps align incentives. Yes, incentivizing residents to buy low-flow toilets helps (at least when they don't clog due to insufficient force to flush solids). I'd rather we kick golf courses and sprawling estates off of the residential water system or at least charge incrementally more for more water used per property. But it still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of water rights in the state is (1) used by industry that doesn't get their water from the same reservoirs that residences do and (2) the current water rights regime is enshrined in the California constitution so it would take a well organized campaign and a tremendous amount of political willpower to get it changed. I don't see that happening right now, especially since it threatens several major industries in the state.
- Retric 10y ago
  There is not a total separation between water underground and water in rivers. Streams can replenish the water table around them, or be replenished by the water table. Simply extracting as much water from the ground as you can will generally cost people 'downstream' water. In the long term there is only one source of natural fresh water, precipitation and it's finite abet renewable. A great example of this is from Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin People extracting water from hundreds of miles away end up drying up streams. One viable option is simply to ban alfalfa or other high water use crops. No state constitutional issues with that. PS: Globally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer are becoming very rare.
mason240 10y ago
And then to report their neighbors for taking showers that are to long.
bickfordb 10y ago
FWIU, this is the only water usage the officials can manage. Much of the rest is tied up in byzantine water rights contracts.

marze 10y ago

What percentage? Under 1%? Of that, the lawn gets a lot more than showers, or more ridiculously, a glass of water.

dgacmu 10y ago
20% urban: https://www.kcet.org/commentary/drought-by-the-numbers-where-does-california-water-go https://www.kcet.org/commentary/drought-by-the-numbers-where... (that's residential + business + government). For residential, "Landscaping accounts for nearly half of all residential water use." Notably, most of the restrictions were on watering lawns, which isn't crazy as one part of a bigger picture water conservation strategy. It's not going to work miracles, but it could conceivably cut total statewide water use by 1-2%. (With a goal to cut statewide water use by 20%, that's not actually an insignificant amount. Obviously, there's a ton of agricultural use remaining to be reduced.) The Palo Alto restrictions, for example: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47322 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/473... Several of these make sense: 2. Flooding or runoff is prohibited. 3. A shut-off valve is required for hoses used to wash vehicles, buildings, etc. 4. Applying water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. 5. Water in fountains or other decorative water feature must be recirculated. 6. Irrigating outdoors is prohibited during and within 48 hours after a measurable rainfall. 9. Irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians is prohibited. 10. Landscape irrigation for new development must comply with state and local building codes. 11. Leaks must be fixed as soon as possible. Some are fairly stupid: 7. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Your source for 20% says that 20% is a "conventional estimate" and doesn't seem to provide a source for that estimate. It seems pretty high compared to other numbers I've seen.
  - dgacmu 10y ago
    Acknowledged - I didn't shop around carefully for primary sources for my link. I think the overall point holds even if you drop it to 10%, though -- there's probably 1% of overall water use to be trimmed through the more-effective residential cutbacks. (It's worth distinguishing between potable and non-potable water in these analyses, though, because from a municipal perspective, there are additional benefits to keeping a cap on potable water use.)
- greeneggs 10y ago
  > Some are fairly stupid: 7. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. I think the idea is to raise awareness of the problem, especially among tourists. Or maybe restaurants just prefer not to have to set water out, so they can sell more drinks? Either way, I can't say it bothers me much.
  - fiatmoney 10y ago
    "Raising awareness" is stupid. What are they supposed to do in response, and how much water would that save?
  - hueving 10y ago
    Why would anyone care about raising awareness among tourists? They are amongst the smallest users of water (only in the state for a short period, no lawn to water, no crops to grow).
  - rhino369 10y ago
    As a tourist in SF in last January what exactly could I have done to help the situation? Buy a rice farm and shut it down? Drinking tap water is the most efficient use of water possible.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
According to this [1] about 10%. Their goal was to reduce urban use by 25%, meaning a total reduction of 2.5%. [1] http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108 http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108

2PetitsVerres 10y ago

I don't really know what are the exact regulations, but I've read the article. It says: > The rules do not apply to agriculture, which is covered by different regulations and makes up the bulk of water use in the state. Cuts in supply based on seniority were imposed in the last year. Some of them have been rolled back already as water has become more available. Doesn't that mean that there are also regulation on the agriculture part of water consumption?

thephyber 10y ago
Water rights is complicated in California. The movie Chinatown was a "based on true events" kind of deal relating to California water rights when the state was going through growing pains in the post-WW1 boom. The best I can figure, water rights (basically a contract which establishes how much water you have a right to use from which surface water sources) has to do with seniority. In 2015, the state regulators adjusted the coefficients in an effort to prevent starvation of downstream water rights[1]. I don't know how residential water districts compete with legacy water rights ownership, but I do know that residential water districts for the vast majority of the state's population get their water from just a small handful of inland reservoirs. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-restrictions-on-water-use-by-farmers.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-re...
- rconti 10y ago
  This is the absolute best long read I've seen on the Colorado River and California water rights. Interestingly, many forms of water conservation for agriculture actually have a negative impact. If farmers keep the same allocation but use it more efficiently, they're able to grow more, and there's less runoff so less groundwater recharge and less return to the river. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-disappearing-river http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-disappearin...

thephyber 10y ago

I still don't understand this argument. Yes, it matters that residents use less water than prior to the drought -- at least a lot more than you give it credit. The residential water reservoir system in California isn't being plundered by Big Agri, Big Ranch, Big Bottled Water, or Big Frack. Yes, those things use most of the water in the state. No, the vast majority of that water would not otherwise make it into an existing reservoir that supplies residents. It would make it into a non-reservoir body of water or it would help replenish the water table (which is what they were using until this winter). There is a finite volume of reservoir space and it currently takes several years to build new ones. There is a fixed and finite amount of surface area upstream of those reservoirs that collect and consolidate rainwater into the reservoirs. Average long-term usage by a slightly growing population (at least until recently) is still outpacing long-term replenishment rates of those reservoirs. Yes, when California urban residents get fined for running their sprinklers mid-day, it helps align incentives. Yes, incentivizing residents to buy low-flow toilets helps (at least when they don't clog due to insufficient force to flush solids). I'd rather we kick golf courses and sprawling estates off of the residential water system or at least charge incrementally more for more water used per property. But it still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of water rights in the state is (1) used by industry that doesn't get their water from the same reservoirs that residences do and (2) the current water rights regime is enshrined in the California constitution so it would take a well organized campaign and a tremendous amount of political willpower to get it changed. I don't see that happening right now, especially since it threatens several major industries in the state.

Retric 10y ago
There is not a total separation between water underground and water in rivers. Streams can replenish the water table around them, or be replenished by the water table. Simply extracting as much water from the ground as you can will generally cost people 'downstream' water. In the long term there is only one source of natural fresh water, precipitation and it's finite abet renewable. A great example of this is from Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin People extracting water from hundreds of miles away end up drying up streams. One viable option is simply to ban alfalfa or other high water use crops. No state constitutional issues with that. PS: Globally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer are becoming very rare.

mason240 10y ago

And then to report their neighbors for taking showers that are to long.

bickfordb 10y ago

FWIU, this is the only water usage the officials can manage. Much of the rest is tied up in byzantine water rights contracts.