Comments on: CA may save enough to skip big water works

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:21:48 +0000

I don’t know anything about this website but based on the previous comments it appears to attract old water buffalos or those that think increasing supply forever is possible. The world long since learned that the cost of efficiency is much less (in $$ and environmental damage) than new supply (both energy and water). And anyone who can say that desal is appropriate for agric. knows nothing about agric. economics. Complaining about rate increases due to drought inspired conservation also reflects a lack of knowledge of economics. If you want to see big price hikes for water wait until the costs of desal, the Delta tunnels and new reservoirs with very low yields are added to your bills..The best storage is groundwater basins. The cheapest source of energy and water is efficiency. I only have 30 years of water management in CA but it includes both urban and agric. Commenters – please vent your anger elsewhere and use water forums to share you knowledge. At the least you may discover that you’re ideas are not facts or truths.

By: Itachee

Itachee — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 15:18:55 +0000

Anyone who really beeves this article and the claims it makes is out of touch with reality and knows so lilittle about water in CA as to be dangerous. Based on the first hand experience gained during my 35 years working on managing water in CA, water conservation is enviro code talk for retirement of 500,000 acres for ag land and further restrictions on urban and industrial development in CA. There simply isn’t enough water to be conserved for conservation to be a loing term solution to our water supply shortages.

By: eck

eck — Sat, 12 Sep 2015 02:12:51 +0000

In reply to Hank de Carbonel. Absolutely Hank. Anything to appease the enviro wackos. If we get thru this current drought we're just lucky. With the huge increase (and climbing) in population it's just plain obvious CA needs more water storage.

By: Loufca

Loufca — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:10:10 +0000

To say that the water savings came primarily from people not watering their lawns is absolutely ludicrous. What you fail to understand is that grass is one of the best bio filters, CO2 sequesters and water purifiers available. The more important piece of your article is “unintended consequences”. Less water is used, as requested by governmental authorities and now there is a shortfall in the governments revenue. Basically, another rate increase is coming because the population did what it was asked to do. If this was an unintended consequence, someone, in Sacramento should be fired for having their head in the sand.

By: Spurwing Plover

Spurwing Plover — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:25:56 +0000

Time to give serious thought to desalization of the ocean water so it can be used for drinking and agriculteral use and Screw Greenpeace

By: fletch92131

fletch92131 — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:59:15 +0000

Many big cities will still have to go after water desalination.

By: Hank de Carbonel

Hank de Carbonel — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:24:05 +0000

Pardon my skepticism, but is it possible the State would fudge the numbers to justify doing nothing?