Opinion: What if the drought is permanent?
By Dan Walters
California’s prolonged drought drew a bit of official attention last week.
Dan Walters
The state Water Resources Control Board tightened, ever so slightly, water conservation rules on local water agencies and users.
Two days later, Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders announced a $1.1 billion drought response plan, mostly old wine in new bottles with little immediate effect.
Underlying these tepid responses are assumptions that the drought is still a temporary condition and that mild steps will suffice without major economic or social disruptions.
But what if the drought continues for many years or is even permanent? Shouldn’t we be thinking about alternatives?
Desalinization plants throughout coastal cities can be very significant solution.
Note how those plants transformed Israel from an arid desert to a net exporter of water to her neighbors.
It is necessary to move ahead with the mothballed desalinization plans for the sake of the farmers and the long term benefits of Californians.
M elie Alyeshmeni, I agree with you about coastal cities using desalinization plants from ocean water.
I would also like to see our reclaimed water here from STPUD be used locally rather than being pumped over the hill to Indian Creek Reservoir. Big job, but possibly doable.
As it is, for a long time now, we are drawing on well water. With minimal snowpack the wells can go dry.
Use water wisely and re use what you can.Call STPUD for some water conservation tips. OLS
OLS Just a note. Our reclaimed water does not go to Indian Creek. It has not since around 1986. It goes to Harvey Palce. Please check with STPUD for what and why we do with our reclaimed water.
Governor Moonbutt should put his useless train to nowhere on a side track and use that money towards the drought issues.
I’d like to see all the Tahoe folks with green lawns letting them go brown this year. Just in case.
“I would also like to see our reclaimed water here from STPUD be used locally rather than being pumped over the hill” Good point! We pump a lot of water out of the wells here, and almost none of it comes back into the basin. Taking all that water without putting it back can’t be good.
“I’d like to see all the Tahoe folks with green lawns letting them go brown this year” Nah, I’ll keep my lawn and water it too. When the firefighters are picking which house to defend in the wildfire, they’ll most certainly pick the one with a nice 20-30 ft strip of green grass around it. You can plant a tinder box if you want, but we know whose house will survive. There’s no point in draconian conservation here. We have plenty of water, and no one else can take it right now, so we might as well use it for ourselves. Waste water? No way. 30% mandatory rationing, no more showers, let your lawn go dry, etc? No. I’ll conserve wherever I can, but I’m not going to risk my house and all my possessions to save a little water.
I am keeping my 30 feet of green as well.
Remember like in the Bay Area if you save too much water your rates will have to go up to support the utility.
Kit still looking at his “moonbutt” I see…
Anyway. Dan throws rocks without any real ideas except: take water from the farmers, wipe out orchards & replace with row crops, let water find a “true value” (whatever that means), “some desalination plants are being built” and collect more rain water – somehow.
1. Reclaim more water.
2. Recharge aquifers for storage to lower water evaporation rates.
3. Desalination via wave & solar technology.
4. Yes, California Agriculture will have to use less water; Cattle use 30 – 50 gallons of water a day.
5. Upgrade our aqueducts to lower evaporation rates. (Lake Tahoe looses an estimated 350,000 acre feet per year via evaporation.)
6. Yes, rationing has to start.