ADVERTISEMENT

Water Use 101

billanole

Veteran Seminole Insider
Mar 5, 2005
9,906
3,899
853
Don’t use more than you need.
https://www.dcreport.org/2017/12/28/utah-water-wasters-want-to-siphon-more-of-the-colorado-river/
It is crazy how places with historically dry regions lead lifestyles that utilize lots of water. Idaho and Utah lead the nation per capita. If you want lush greenery, go to areas than can support that lifestyle. I have spent time around St. George and it is a beautiful desert area. 325 gallons per day? Jeez. I thought the fountains and golf courses around Vegas were crazy.
One more example of living beyond means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FSUTribe76
Blows my mind that western states don't invest in desalination plants, I got it, they're expensive and use energy, but the alternative sucks even worse!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FSUTribe76
What blows my mind is how desert states have so many insane water use practices. Would you try to produce desalinated water in order to water golf greens and have water features in housing developments in an arid area?
The article talked about raising water rates for the area users. I would target the excessive users, not the typical homeowner.
 
My brother lives in Salt Lake City. He pays a flat rate regardless of usage. And his rates are lower than mine in Colorado. We have water restrictions when in drought, they historically haven't.

And most of the Western states don't have access to salt water for desalination to be a consideration. Reservoirs and sucking off the major rivers is our source. Water rights laws out here are insane. Until last year, we legally couldn't have rain barrels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billanole
Lettuce is a highly water intensive crop. The two leading lettuce producing states in the US are California and Arizona. Look no further for a sign that our current system of agriculture and the water upon which it depends is unsustainable.
 
My brother lives in Salt Lake City. He pays a flat rate regardless of usage. And his rates are lower than mine in Colorado. We have water restrictions when in drought, they historically haven't.

And most of the Western states don't have access to salt water for desalination to be a consideration. Reservoirs and sucking off the major rivers is our source. Water rights laws out here are insane. Until last year, we legally couldn't have rain barrels.


Call me dumb but having residential rain barrels being illegal sure seems stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense for an individual to use rainwater to water plants/gardens or whatever than to use the scarce city water? I live in the country and I use 2 decorative rain barrels in the summer to water my garden and plants. They are 50 gal. each and with a good rain they take like 10 minutes to fill.
 

Call me dumb but having residential rain barrels being illegal sure seems stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense for an individual to use rainwater to water plants/gardens or whatever than to use the scarce city water? I live in the country and I use 2 decorative rain barrels in the summer to water my garden and plants. They are 50 gal. each and with a good rain they take like 10 minutes to fill.
I think the argument had been that you could not interfere with the rain waters path to recharging the ground water. My thought is that for residential use the law was unfair as it was only a temporary delay in the recharge occurring.
 
Lettuce is a highly water intensive crop. The two leading lettuce producing states in the US are California and Arizona. Look no further for a sign that our current system of agriculture and the water upon which it depends is unsustainable.
California is a huge producer of hay which is often trucked to neighboring states, so they are actually exporting their scarce resource.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squiffynole
Look no further for a sign that our current system of agriculture and the water upon which it depends is unsustainable.

The 'current system' is a political one. Not trying to head off the thread, but here's some background on how this came about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billanole
My brother lives in Salt Lake City. He pays a flat rate regardless of usage. And his rates are lower than mine in Colorado. We have water restrictions when in drought, they historically haven't.

And most of the Western states don't have access to salt water for desalination to be a consideration. Reservoirs and sucking off the major rivers is our source. Water rights laws out here are insane. Until last year, we legally couldn't have rain barrels.
Surely they could pipe it in. I mean, if you can run an oil pipeline from AK to LA, seems you could run a water pipeline from CA to AZ, etc...
 
Surely they could pipe it in. I mean, if you can run an oil pipeline from AK to LA, seems you could run a water pipeline from CA to AZ, etc...

Of course it’s technically feasible, but how many dollars a gallon do you think people will pay?

I’m sure everyone involved will gladly participate - if you’ll pickup the tab.
 
Of course it’s technically feasible, but how many dollars a gallon do you think people will pay?

I’m sure everyone involved will gladly participate - if you’ll pickup the tab.
You'll as in me or you'll as in the consumers?
 
Of course it’s technically feasible, but how many dollars a gallon do you think people will pay?

I’m sure everyone involved will gladly participate - if you’ll pickup the tab.

Thats exactly right. We clearly have the technology, but it doesn't make fiscal sense.

What MIGHT make more fiscal sense is to desalinate and supply the states near the sources. Then free up the mountain states to consumer the water that falls as snow in their region. The issue is, why would they want to pay more for the desalinated water, when they already have water rights claims on the water that just flows down to them?
 
Worse, most is shipped to Asia. We grow too many water intensive crops here, but big ag spends lots of money buying politicians. That's why you still see open ditch irrigation. Stupid.
Desalination sounds great until you look at the numbers.
California is a huge producer of hay which is often trucked to neighboring states, so they are actually exporting their scarce resource.
 
Surely they could pipe it in. I mean, if you can run an oil pipeline from AK to LA, seems you could run a water pipeline from CA to AZ, etc...
Actually, this was proposed back in the 70s. Was deemed too expensive at the time, but would have been dirt cheap compared to the price we're paying for drought/lack of planning now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmanole

Call me dumb but having residential rain barrels being illegal sure seems stupid. Wouldn't it make more sense for an individual to use rainwater to water plants/gardens or whatever than to use the scarce city water? I live in the country and I use 2 decorative rain barrels in the summer to water my garden and plants. They are 50 gal. each and with a good rain they take like 10 minutes to fill.

I think the argument had been that you could not interfere with the rain waters path to recharging the ground water. My thought is that for residential use the law was unfair as it was only a temporary delay in the recharge occurring.

Bill is correct, the states "below" us feel that the snow melt and the rain we get belongs to them because the water flows to them naturally (rivers). And unapproved collection (water barrels) was deemed as interfering with "their" water. And it takes much longer than 10 minutes to fill out here:
Ohio averages 37.57 inches
Tallahassee gets @ 59 inches/year
Denver gets 8-10; Colorado Springs gets 16
 
Actually, this was proposed back in the 70s. Was deemed too expensive at the time, but would have been dirt cheap compared to the price we're paying for drought/lack of planning now.

Lack of planning?
I think it would be more accurate to recognize it for what it is - bad planning on top of a misleading impression regarding the underlying environment.

Plans have been implemented, and regulatory capture has again reared its head. It’s a mistake to describe it as a lack of planning.

NYT: “Those who worry most about the future of the West - politicians, scientists, business leaders, city planners and environmentalists - are increasingly realizing that a world of eternally blue skies and meager mountain snowpacks may not be a passing phenomenon but rather the return of a harsh climatic norm.

Continuing research into drought cycles over the last 800 years bears this out, strongly suggesting that the relatively wet weather across much of the West during the 20th century was a fluke. In other words, scientists who study tree rings and ocean temperatures say, the development of the modern urbanized West - one of the biggest growth spurts in the nation's history - may have been based on a colossal miscalculation.”
 
Worse, most is shipped to Asia. We grow too many water intensive crops here, but big ag spends lots of money buying politicians. That's why you still see open ditch irrigation. Stupid.
Desalination sounds great until you look at the numbers.

I get that costs are high, but when you have people that don't have running water in their homes that constitutes a crisis. I'm in favor (and believe me I'm usually not) of federal funds being used to finance desalt plants in California. Your states ag is too important to the nation to mess around with. U less of course it all goes from veggies and nuts to legal weed. I think with desal plants the population and farmers can both be happy. Maybe then you could export water?
 
California is a huge producer of hay which is often trucked to neighboring states, so they are actually exporting their scarce resource.


whatdoesagayhorseeat.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: funksouljon
Your states ag is too important to the nation to mess around with. U less of course it all goes from veggies and nuts to legal weed. I think with desal plants the population and farmers can both be happy. Maybe then you could export water?

The agriculture should be done where it is actually (not merely politically) profitable.

From the article I linked above:

“As Johnson and Murphy point out, the first users in the western system are agricultural interests, and they are allocated water at subsidized prices that would not be available even in eastern states where there was much more water. At $5 to $15 for an acre-foot (enough water to cover an acre of ground with a foot of water), farmers are able to grow water-intensive crops such as alfalfa, cotton, and rice. (Even with the water subsidies, rice is also subsidized on the price end, as the cost of growing rice is greater than the price that can be obtained for it on the free market.)

Paul Milgrom and John Roberts point out that these subsidies create situations that can only be called an economic version of the Theater of the Absurd:

Water rights for farmers vary considerably throughout the state of California, depending on the source of the water. Some farmers have inherited extremely valuable water rights to have huge quantities of cheap water delivered to them. Water for farming from the federal Bureau of Reclamation sells for $10 to $15 per acre-foot, and the cheapest subsidized water sells for as little as $3.50 per acre-foot, even though it may cost $100 to pump the water to the farmers…Meanwhile, households in Palo Alto pay about $65 for the same quantity of water, and some urban water users pay as much as $230. The most desperate nonagricultural communities along the Pacific coast of California have gone as far as to build desalination plants to obtain potable water from the ocean at a cost of approximately $3,000 per acre-foot. (Since this was written, it is not now possible to desalinate ocean water at about $1,000 an acre-foot.)

How much of the cheap water is used? One agricultural use alone, irrigating pastures for grazing cows and sheep, used 5.3 million acre-feet of water in 1986. This is enough water to cover the District of Columbia to a depth of 1,250 feet! …Yet the industry of raising cattle and sheep on irrigated pasture in California had gross revenues for that year of less than $100 million. Plainly, devoting so much water to such a low-value use is possible only because the water used to irrigate pastures is sold so cheaply.

Government policies ensure that the water will be wasted, since those who have the water rights, as noted earlier, must "use it or lose it." Furthermore, they have been prohibited from selling those rights to other farmers or urban users. (The "reasoning" behind such regulations is that the government wishes to "preserve" the farm culture of Central California.)”
 
  • Like
Reactions: funksouljon
HBO or Vice had recently had a documentary on the California Water situation and one of the interesting aspects was venture capital firms buying smaller wineries but the wine isn't the reason. The water rights from each property and hope that it could be publicly traded.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT