California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions

[_Quasimodo]

Drought is certainly the significant factor, but in some ways an inevitable one. It isn't the only factor, and water security isn't accomplished by praying for rain. Or shopping at Whole Foods and raising chickens on one's mini-ranch.

Arizona, where I live and also work on related issues in a very close way, has a similarly high agricultural demand for water. But when urban and suburban residents toss around the idea that water scarcity is a function of factors outside of the space they occupy in the equations, they do damage to the ability to make meaningful impacts to water security improvements. I'd heard recently here in Arizona a water manager discussing California's situation and claim that part of the issue in California was that larger percentages of surface water supplies are tied up by environmental protections than any other demand. I looked it up and it appeared to be true - environmental water demand was listed in the state water resources departments stats at around 50% of the water allocation for the state overall. The point the state data source made about this was that much of this water isn't available for repurposing. But even still, if it were and it becomes a choice of where to send that water and for what purposes, what would you choose to do with it? What is lost by that decision?

The point being, California has poor water security. Sources are tied up and there is little to no redundancies when traditional sources are hit by factors essentially beyond anyone's control. Demand in most counties has gone up over the last 20 years even as per capita use has often decreased. It's an issue involving a lot of factors, including the drought of course, but also population size and location, public behaviors, opportunities for behavior change, and the scale of said changes- all on top of bigger questions that are really going to come down to what Californians are willing to give up, and how well we understand what it means when those opportunities costs have been spent. When you're debating whether or not to replace your turf lawn with more xeric and native-adapted plant material, you're debating the right things in your own behavior model. But it's not particularly better than the person debating whether it matters if they drive a compact or hybrid versus an SUV, eat tons of beef or more sustainable foods, etc., etc., etc. when it comes to the climate change discussion.

Please don't "Nah" that crap again. That's damned ignorant.

I've worked on related issues as well. My major in college (as an undergrad) was in Civil Engineering. I spent a few years working on irrigation systems and the contamination problems in water reclamation.

There are lots of things to discuss about the proper use of our water resources and we can have those, but the discussion was originally about the drastic lack of rainfall and it's immediate consequences.

After having read your response, the only thing that stuck in my head was "That's damned ignorant."

The word "nah" to me is just a lazy way of saying "no". That is what I meant. I was just disagreeing with what you were saying. I'm sorry if you took offence, but it wasn't meant to be offensive. On this board, "nah" might be the nicest thing someone would say to you all day.

[_honorentheos]

Drought is certainly the significant factor, but in some ways an inevitable one. It isn't the only factor, and water security isn't accomplished by praying for rain. Or shopping at Whole Foods and raising chickens on one's mini-ranch.

Arizona, where I live and also work on related issues in a very close way, has a similarly high agricultural demand for water. But when urban and suburban residents toss around the idea that water scarcity is a function of factors outside of the space they occupy in the equations, they do damage to the ability to make meaningful impacts to water security improvements. I'd heard recently here in Arizona a water manager discussing California's situation and claim that part of the issue in California was that larger percentages of surface water supplies are tied up by environmental protections than any other demand. I looked it up and it appeared to be true - environmental water demand was listed in the state water resources departments stats at around 50% of the water allocation for the state overall. The point the state data source made about this was that much of this water isn't available for repurposing. But even still, if it were and it becomes a choice of where to send that water and for what purposes, what would you choose to do with it? What is lost by that decision?

The point being, California has poor water security. Sources are tied up and there is little to no redundancies when traditional sources are hit by factors essentially beyond anyone's control. Demand in most counties has gone up over the last 20 years even as per capita use has often decreased. It's an issue involving a lot of factors, including the drought of course, but also population size and location, public behaviors, opportunities for behavior change, and the scale of said changes- all on top of bigger questions that are really going to come down to what Californians are willing to give up, and how well we understand what it means when those opportunities costs have been spent. When you're debating whether or not to replace your turf lawn with more xeric and native-adapted plant material, you're debating the right things in your own behavior model. But it's not particularly better than the person debating whether it matters if they drive a compact or hybrid versus an SUV, eat tons of beef or more sustainable foods, etc., etc., etc. when it comes to the climate change discussion.

Please don't "Nah" that s*** again. That's f*****g ignorant.

I've worked on related issues as well. My major in college (as an undergrad) was in Civil Engineering. I spent a few years working on irrigation systems and the contamination problems in water reclamation.

There are lots of things to discuss about the proper use of our water resources and we can have those, but the discussion was originally about the drastic lack of rainfall and it's immediate consequences.

After having read your response, the only thing that stuck in my head was "That's f*****g ignorant."

The word "nah" to me is just a lazy way of saying "no". That is what I meant. I was just disagreeing with what you were saying. I'm sorry if you took offence, but it wasn't meant to be offensive. On this board, "nah" might be the nicest thing someone would say to you all day.

The thing is, water scarcity and water security are holistic issues by their nature. The conversation about "proper" use of water resources is coffee table talk, perhaps. The reality is that droughts expose scarcity and security issues as much as cause them, which makes the conversation about how to improve water security one about multiple factors, cost-benefits with no easy good answers, and especially societal behaviors and change which no one wants. So I'm not offended, just annoyed at how common the thought is among many, many people that shifts the burden of the issue off to externalities when internalizing it has substantial opportunities to help mitigate the crisis if it can't prevent or resolve it. In this context, what you said is damned ignorant and part of a problem, no different than a person who accepts climate change but dismisses action based on it for any number of reasons such as, "The Chinese are polluting more than we are, so what I do doesn't matter." In some ways, even citing climate change as a cause of water scarcity can be nothing more than assigning responsibility to another party.

[_Quasimodo]

The thing is, water scarcity and water security are holistic issues by their nature. The conversation about "proper" use of water resources is coffee table talk, perhaps. The reality is that droughts expose scarcity and security issues as much as cause them, which makes the conversation about how to improve water security one about multiple factors, cost-benefits with no easy good answers, and especially societal behaviors and change which no one wants. So I'm not offended, just annoyed at how common the thought is among many, many people that shifts the burden of the issue off to externalities when internalizing it has substantial opportunities to help mitigate the crisis if it can't prevent or resolve it. In this context, what you said is damned ignorant and part of a problem, no different than a person who accepts climate change but dismisses action based on it for any number of reasons such as, "The Chinese are polluting more than we are, so what I do doesn't matter." In some ways, even citing climate change as a cause of water scarcity can be nothing more than assigning responsibility to another party.

The OP and I were talking about drought and climate change. You are talking about conservation theories and applications. Those things should go hand in hand, but you have found a way to make them contentious. You clearly have no idea how I feel about both separate subjects.

If you are having a bad day, please take it out on someone else.

[_honorentheos]

Quasimodo,

Our conversation stemmed out of an existing tangent from the OP where you had replied to Ajax's (I assume) sarcastic comment about overpopulation being to blame for the immediate crisis rather than climate change. Your response reflected an oversimplification for whatever reason that, in the context of water scarcity and water security planning, is actually fundamentally off. My addition that it wasn't entirely accurate to leave population growth out of the conversation, and that the current crisis as you refer to it should be looked at as a condition brought on by many factors was not aggressive nor was it off topic.

Now, your reply to that comment was simply wrong, and flippant. And if you disliked my tone in reply then please understand that I will respond to passive-aggressive replies with plain ol' aggression because they aren't different in intent and frankly I prefer people to be honest enough with themselves to accept they are not playing nice when they aren't, in fact, playing nice. Playing at nice is not the genuine article.

It doesn't matter what you think about water conservation in the context of this conversation. What matters here is what you've stated in this thread and how you chose to state it. Your post above is another example of deflecting and externalizing responsibility. Don't view my replies as hostile. They're simply responding to you as your replies demand.

[_Doctor Steuss]

My wife and I have been discussing how to replace our front lawn with less thirsty plants.

When it comes time, and you are looking at plants, take a look at the Texas Sage. It is by far one of my favorites. Lantana are really beautiful too (but you have to cut them back in the winter). Also love the desert daisy, but everyone who has tried to grow them in Vegas that I know hasn't been able to get them to survive for more than a few years -- maybe you'd have better luck where you are.

[Guest]

Nah, our crisis is due to drought. 80% of the water used in California is consumed by agriculture. The amount of land under irrigation in CA hasn't grown much in many years.

Any increase in urban and suburban populations is of little consequence to the water shortage problem. We just need more precipitation and it's not coming.

I think you too easily dismiss the importance of population and population growth. Whether urban or not, population drives the need for agriculture and the water required by it. You are right that no one can reasonably dispute that the current drought is by far the biggest reason for the water crisis California is now experiencing, but it is my understanding that even in a normal rainfall year, California's demand for water exceeds the available precipitation falling on it by a considerable margin, and as long as the population continues to increase, the demand for water for all purposes--especially for agriculture--must increase. Since population tends to increase exponentially, if it does not stabilize at some level, the demand for water will inevitably exceed the supply--no matter what realistic and practical measures we take to use our water more efficiently and minimize waste, whether the drought ends or not. Ultimately, any plan to prevent or ameliorate hardships and crises due to shortages of resources of any kind, and increasingly widespread poverty and even starvation that does not include somehow stabilizing human population is guaranteed to fail.

ETA:
Nevertheless, as you said, the immediate cause of the current water crisis is climate change--not overpopulation.

[_moksha]

Wish I had the energy and resources to Xeriscape my yard. Plant the stuff that can grow without added water and is made for our drying climate. Just as people will be eventually retreating from the shoreline, people will move out of areas where the water is depleted.

Good news, The LDS Church can pick up shoreline property in Florida at a highly discounted rate by 2020.

[_Quasimodo]

Quasimodo,

Our conversation stemmed out of an existing tangent from the OP where you had replied to Ajax's (I assume) sarcastic comment about overpopulation being to blame for the immediate crisis rather than climate change. Your response reflected an oversimplification for whatever reason that, in the context of water scarcity and water security planning, is actually fundamentally off. My addition that it wasn't entirely accurate to leave population growth out of the conversation, and that the current crisis as you refer to it should be looked at as a condition brought on by many factors was not aggressive nor was it off topic.

Your comment does have relevance as far as the overall water shortage problem. It did not have relevance to the comment that ajax made. Ajax (a climate change denier) was, in effect, trying to say that the problems of a low snowpack (5% of a normal year) were due to increased population in California instead of climate change. Which makes no sense.

Now, your reply to that comment was simply wrong, and flippant. And if you disliked my tone in reply then please understand that I will respond to passive-aggressive replies with plain ol' aggression because they aren't different in intent and frankly I prefer people to be honest enough with themselves to accept they are not playing nice when they aren't, in fact, playing nice. Playing at nice is not the genuine article.

If you think that words and phrases like nah, nope, no, I don't think so, I disagree are flippant, you should look up the word. I can (and have) been flippant , but that's just my sense of humor. Not in this case, though.

It doesn't matter what you think about water conservation in the context of this conversation. What matters here is what you've stated in this thread and how you chose to state it. Your post above is another example of deflecting and externalizing responsibility. Don't view my replies as hostile. They're simply responding to you as your replies demand.

I think you are taking offense where no offense was given. You responded to my saying "nah" by saying "damned ignorant". Compare the two.

I promise, if I ever speak to you again, I will not use the word nah.

[_Quasimodo]

My wife and I have been discussing how to replace our front lawn with less thirsty plants.

When it comes time, and you are looking at plants, take a look at the Texas Sage. It is by far one of my favorites. Lantana are really beautiful too (but you have to cut them back in the winter). Also love the desert daisy, but everyone who has tried to grow them in Vegas that I know hasn't been able to get them to survive for more than a few years -- maybe you'd have better luck where you are.

I looked up Texas Sage and it does look great! I am familiar with desert daisies. I like them, too. I already have lantanas in the back yard. They do really well here and my wife loves them because they attract butterflies. So many variations and colors.

I think I will seek the help of a landscape designer to make final decisions. I'm also trying to find the best solution to reconfiguring my sprinkling system to a drip system.

Thanks for the tips, Doctor Steuss!

[_honorentheos]

Your comment does have relevance as far as the overall water shortage problem. It did not have relevance to the comment that ajax made. Ajax (a climate change denier) was, in effect, trying to say that the problems of a low snowpack (5% of a normal year) were due to increased population in California instead of climate change. Which makes no sense.

Quasimodo,

It isn't "either-or". I get that your response to Ajax was based on his position on climate change and the apparent sarcasm he expressed at your point in presenting the figures. But the issue is more complex, and it wasn't so much the "Nah" that annoyed so much as the dismissal of the point that water scarcity is an issue related to many things, of which the drought itself is a significant factor. But not the only one, and population size and dynamics are a significant part of the calculus. In some ways the drought, though the biggest factor in causing scarcity, isn't necessarily the most meaningful when it comes down to dealing with improving water security. Personally, I'm hesitant to claim that the immediate drought is directly related to climate change in a public forum in that precipitation levels aren't easy to defend in the face of climate change denial. Climate is, as you certainly know, bigger than that so to speak.

I don't think you're representing the direction of the conversation accurately, myself. The dismissal was the flippant point, with the "nah" adding to the dismissiveness while being actually wrong. I'm sorry-ish that you are offended for being told your comment was damned ignorant. I guess it made it stick, though. So there's that.