Comments on: Water board unveils steep CA cuts

By: Will

Will — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 06:56:10 +0000

I have never seen such an absolute quagmire in my life when it comes to water in this desert state. This is, yet another great example, of these “environmentalists” who find it more much more important to make sure that a minnow can swim/exist in the delta than it is to be certain that our state has water. Water for its economy. Water for its agriculture, for its cities and for its people.

With all these inflated water rates/fees that the state’s water districts will be collecting plus the 7+ billion water bond measure that was passed….every single CENT of these funds should be going towards the upgrade to the water infrastructure here.

It absolutely boggles my mind that new dams haven’t been built. Newer storage utilized instead of it all going to the ocean. New reservoirs haven’t been built. Current one’s haven’t been maintained or expanded. Water mains in the major cities are breaking just about every week. It is also critical that funds be invested in new desalination plants.

We don’t have a choice. If we do not make these investments, we aren’t going to have a state left.

By: LGMike

LGMike — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:12:46 +0000

Interesting, LA and Bay area only cut last year 7-8% so they only need to cut and additional 5-6%. As I recall, during the last big crunch, San Diego cut 20-25% and continued for many years at this lower per person use even as our population increased by thousands. On top of which we have cut our more than fair share the last year but must now cut an additional 16%. Howabout the water board members cut their use by 25% and make sure the politicians do the same both in Sacramento and their home house.
Either way, you can bet the price for water will go up as the use goes down, rather than cutting expenses and government salaries and benefits , which bet they will raise because of the cost of living.

By: Stokes

Stokes — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:51:02 +0000

In reply to Dork.

The pumping cuts are based on keeping delta water from flowing inland and adjusted depending on delta inflow.

More info here http://resources.ca.gov/docs/Smelt_QandA.pdf and I made this graph http://i.imgur.com/dyV3gkl.png

By: Jim Reardon

Jim Reardon — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:22:21 +0000

This almost religious belief that tiered water pricing is necessary to achieve conservation must be questioned. A single (higher) rate for water that produces the same revenue as the tiers will produce immediate conservation. Furthermore, if you factor in influence of having to recover fixed costs from the sale of 25 percent less water, the single rate increase is easily justified and it send the same price signal to everyone

By: Dork

Dork — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:44:53 +0000

I looked but have been unable to find out the exact percentages of Cuts and Mandatory Conservation of Water the Delta Smelt are required to adhere to. Does anybody know??