Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 12:00 AM
https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2015/04/15/locals-face-35-cuts-in-water-use
Town Square
Locals face 35% cuts in water use
Original post made on Apr 16, 2015
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 12:00 AM
Comments
Posted by Lois
a resident of Woodside High School
on Apr 16, 2015 at 7:23 pm
a resident of Woodside High School
on Apr 16, 2015 at 7:23 pm
If people stopped watering their lawns, the water saved would be tremendous. We ARE in a drought people!!!
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 7:03 am
Menlo Voter is a registered user.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 7:03 am
Menlo Voter is a registered user.
If people stopped watering their lawns the water saved would be a drop in the bucket. 80% of water used in this state is used by AG. Residents saving water is a feel good approach that will have zero effect.
Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:43 am
pogo is a registered user.
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 8:43 am
pogo is a registered user.
Interesting perspective that California agriculture does not use 80% of our water as claimed. I haven't fact checked it but it wouldn't surprise me.
Link: Web Link
Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 9:12 am
Menlo Voter is a registered user.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 9:12 am
Menlo Voter is a registered user.
Interesting article POGO.
Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 9:45 am
pogo is a registered user.
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 17, 2015 at 9:45 am
pogo is a registered user.
It appears that about half of California's water is diverted for ecological uses such as supporting the Delta smelt (according to the article). Of the remaining half, about 80% is used for agriculture. That means that about 40% of California's water is consumed by agriculture. A very big percentage, but it's not 80%.
I'm not suggesting that ecological uses are less worthy than farming. But a little accuracy would be helpful so we can make appropriate decisions.
Posted by Bob
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 17, 2015 at 3:20 pm
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 17, 2015 at 3:20 pm
What happened to the part of the discussion about infrastructure? We are trying to conserve after the fact rather than thinking ahead and preparing for problems like the drought.
I'm so pleased that our elected and other officials react rather than think ahead. What a novel concept that would be........
Posted by Waterworld
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Apr 17, 2015 at 4:27 pm
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Apr 17, 2015 at 4:27 pm
Let's talk about infrastructure
Pipeline to transport OIL from Canada to Houston, TX = $7 billion
Web Link
Tunnels to move water under the delta to protect fish = $23 billion
Web Link
Wouldn't piping oil, with all the attendant environmental risks, be more difficult to move than water?
Does it make sense to spend that amount of money to protect wildlife?
There was a plan to build infrastructure developed a long time ago. Environmentalists chose to sacrifice those plans to save some fish and protect nature. Now California's population has ballooned and there's not enough water to go around.
Web Link
We’re suffering the ramifications of the “small is beautiful,” “spaceship earth” ideology of our cocooned elites. Californians have adopted the ancient peasant mentality of a limited good, in which various interests must fight it out for the always scarce scraps. Long ago we jettisoned the can-do visions of our agrarian forebears, who knew California far better than we do and trusted nature far less. Now, like good peasants, we are at one another’s throats for the last drops of a finite supply.
