Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Arnold, Tell the Truth About California Water!
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continues on his crusade to build more dams and a peripheral canal to export more water from the California Delta. His campaign is based on the lie that no dams or water storage facilities have been built in California in the past 20 to 30 years - disregarding the fact that several new dams and water storage facilities have been constructed in recent years and virtually every economically feasible dam site in California has now been taken. California water is already overallocated - and to save delta smelt and other imperiled species on the Bay-Delta Estuary, we need to reduce, not increase, water exports from the Delta. The state and federal governments need to take drainage impaired land out of agricultural production, encourage increasing water conservation and develop desalinization facilities, not build the environmentally destructive peripheral canal and economically unfeasible reservoirs.
In the latest episode in his campaign, Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 21 held a “Delta Summit” in Los Angeles to hear presentations by California’s "top water experts" working to “fix” the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta - in other words, to create the infrastructure for increased water exports from the Delta to subsidized agribusiness and Southern California.
In the latest episode in his campaign, Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 21 held a “Delta Summit” in Los Angeles to hear presentations by California’s "top water experts" working to “fix” the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta - in other words, to create the infrastructure for increased water exports from the Delta to subsidized agribusiness and Southern California.
Arnold, Tell the Truth about California Water!
Schwarzenegger's True Lies about Dams and Canals
By Dan Bacher
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger keeps repeating at his press conferences and meetings the big lie that no dams or water storage facilities have been constructed in California in the past 20 to 30 years.
Apparently, the Schwarzenegger administration believes in the classic propaganda technique that if a big lie is repeated enough, it will be eventually accepted as truth by the media and public. This fallacy is being used to bolster his call for a peripheral canal and more dams in California, although the truth is that several major dams and other storage facilities have been constructed during the last 30 years.
On July 14 at a town meeting in Bakersfield, the Governor stated, "Do you know that for 20 years, well, actually since the late '70s, they have not built a dam? I mean, think about that. They have not built a dam.”
Then on Monday, July 16, the Governor discussed his “Comprehensive Water Plan” at San Luis Reservoir, repeating this false statement again. “But over the last 20 years we have not built a single major reservoir that connects to this great system here, even though we have a population growth from 20 million to 37 million people over the same period,” he said.
On July 23, Gov. Schwarzenegger toured Long Beach Aquifer to discuss his Water Plan for Southern California, yet again repeating another variation of this fallacy.
“Right now our water system is extremely vulnerable,” he stated. “For one thing, we haven’t built a major state reservoir in more than 30 years and in that time our population has grown from 20 million to 37 million. We must solve California’s water problems not only for today, but for 40 years from now.”’
There is no doubt that the California dam building frenzy by the federal, state and regional governments of the period from 1945 through 1970 is long over, but this was because virtually all of the suitable and economically feasible on-stream dam sites already had dams built on them or were located on federally designated “wild and scenic” rivers.
In spite of what the Schwarzenegger says, a number of dams and reservoirs have been constructed in California since the late seventies, including some of the largest reservoirs in their respective regions.
The Contra Costa County Water District constructed one of the Bay Area’s largest ever reservoirs, Los Vaqueros near Livermore, during 1994-1997. The lake was filled to capacity and opened to recreation for the first time in September 2001. The lake has a capacity of 100,000 acre-feet of water now – and the reservoir is set for expansion in the future.
More recently, Diamond Valley Reservoir, built by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California to improve dry year reliability, was finished in 2003. The lake, located between Temecula and Hemet off Hwy. 79 at Newport Rd. in the Domenigoni/Diamond valleys, has a capacity of 800,000 acre-feet of water and is the largest-ever reservoir constructed in Southern California.
According to MWD’s website, “This reservoir is larger than Lake Havasu and took 4 years to fill. This reservoir will hold as much water as combining Castaic Lake, Lake Mathews, Pyramid Lake, Lake Perris and Lake Skinner into one.”
This reservoir almost doubles Southern California's surface storage capacity and secures six months of emergency storage in the event of a major earthquake.
In addition, the newest federal Central Valley Project reservoir, San Justo Reservoir, was constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the San Felipe Division beginning in 1987. Water in San Justo comes from the massive San Luis Reservoir.
As Spreck Rosekrans of Environmental Defense points out, "Water supply development continues in California, though today's solutions are different from those adopted during the middle of the 20th century. Today there are few practical opportunities to build new dams that would impound the natural flow of a large river. Most of California's major rivers are either already dammed, protected by law, or too remote to be economically developed." (See "Recently Developed Water Storage Capacity in California, Environmental Defense, April 2007).
He continues, “Innovative water managers are finding, however, that they can extend supplies in a variety of ways, including increased efficiency, recycling, local storage, groundwater management, and transfers and exchanges with other agencies that have different sources and different needs.”
Rosekranz emphasizes that since 1990, 6,200,000 acre-feet of storage have been developed at six sites alone. This storage includes the 900,000 acre-feet of off-stream storage at Los Vaqueros and Diamond Valley, combined with groundwater aquifers.
These aquifers have been developed either to serve local communities or to use as "banks" that exchange ground and surface supplies, using California's vast network of canals, with distant communities in dry years, said Rosekrans.
Whether it was Schwarzenegger’s staff or the Governor himself who concocted these false statements about California water storage really doesn’t make any difference. However, I call on the Governor NOW to stop repeating these mistruths as justification for his mad drive to build the peripheral canal and two new reservoirs.
The two new proposed dams, Sites Dam in the Sacramento Valley and Temperance Dam on the San Joaquin River, are not considered to be economically feasible for the amount of additional water storage they would provide. “The cost of producing water at Sites and Temperance dams would be between $1,000 and $2,000 per acre foot. Who is going to buy this water at such a high price?” said John Beuttler, conservation director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
I believe that by promoting the myth that dams and water storage haven’t increased in California over the past 30 years, the Schwarzenegger administration is trying to create in the public mind the idea that water supply can be magically expanded by building two new dams and a peripheral canal. The problem isn’t that that there aren’t enough dams and water storage facilities in California – the problem is that virtually all of the economically feasible dam sites have already been taken and that California’s finite and fragile water resources have already been overallocated.
The governor’s call for more dams and a canal occurs at a time when the California Delta is at the worst ecological crisis in its history. Four species of pelagic (open water) species have crashed to record lows, the result of massive increases of water exports by the federal land state govnerments, the profileration of toxics in the water and the impact of invasive species. Exports from the Delta need to be reduced, not increased as the state and federal governments are proposing.
More recently, Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein met on August 21 in a “Delta Summit” to hear presentations by California’s top water experts working to “fix” the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. “Experts and stakeholders discussed plans to improve California’s water infrastructure and fix the deteriorating Delta, which supplies clean water to 25 million people in Southern California,” according to the Governor’s office.
“Senator Feinstein and I agree that we need a long-term, sustainable Delta fix that improves conveyance, restores the ecosystem and increases water storage and conservation. We cannot wait until we have a Katrina-like disaster to attack this problem. Twenty five million Californians rely on the Delta for clean, safe water. It also irrigates hundreds of thousands of acres of Central Valley farmland and it is the backbone of California’s $32 billion agricultural industry.”
The problem with this statement is that you can’t have a “long term, sustainable Delta fix” that “improves conveyance,” “increases water storage” and restores the ecosystem at the same time, since Delta water is already overallocated. I’m glad that the Governor mentioned conservation, but so far, his administration has just paid lip service to conserving water.
Building a peripheral canal or constructing economically unfeasible dams will not provide the solution to California’s water problems. The solution is for California and the federal government to take drainage-impaired land in the San Joaquin Valley out of agricultural production and to promote innovative ways of water conservation that will allow California’s fragile water supply to serve both environmental needs and the needs of cities, farmers and industry. The state should also also move full speed ahead with building water desalinization plants in southern California that utilize the latest in technology to effectively increase the public water supply.
Arnold, when are you going to tell the truth about California water?
--
photo from the Governor's Press Office.
Schwarzenegger's True Lies about Dams and Canals
By Dan Bacher
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger keeps repeating at his press conferences and meetings the big lie that no dams or water storage facilities have been constructed in California in the past 20 to 30 years.
Apparently, the Schwarzenegger administration believes in the classic propaganda technique that if a big lie is repeated enough, it will be eventually accepted as truth by the media and public. This fallacy is being used to bolster his call for a peripheral canal and more dams in California, although the truth is that several major dams and other storage facilities have been constructed during the last 30 years.
On July 14 at a town meeting in Bakersfield, the Governor stated, "Do you know that for 20 years, well, actually since the late '70s, they have not built a dam? I mean, think about that. They have not built a dam.”
Then on Monday, July 16, the Governor discussed his “Comprehensive Water Plan” at San Luis Reservoir, repeating this false statement again. “But over the last 20 years we have not built a single major reservoir that connects to this great system here, even though we have a population growth from 20 million to 37 million people over the same period,” he said.
On July 23, Gov. Schwarzenegger toured Long Beach Aquifer to discuss his Water Plan for Southern California, yet again repeating another variation of this fallacy.
“Right now our water system is extremely vulnerable,” he stated. “For one thing, we haven’t built a major state reservoir in more than 30 years and in that time our population has grown from 20 million to 37 million. We must solve California’s water problems not only for today, but for 40 years from now.”’
There is no doubt that the California dam building frenzy by the federal, state and regional governments of the period from 1945 through 1970 is long over, but this was because virtually all of the suitable and economically feasible on-stream dam sites already had dams built on them or were located on federally designated “wild and scenic” rivers.
In spite of what the Schwarzenegger says, a number of dams and reservoirs have been constructed in California since the late seventies, including some of the largest reservoirs in their respective regions.
The Contra Costa County Water District constructed one of the Bay Area’s largest ever reservoirs, Los Vaqueros near Livermore, during 1994-1997. The lake was filled to capacity and opened to recreation for the first time in September 2001. The lake has a capacity of 100,000 acre-feet of water now – and the reservoir is set for expansion in the future.
More recently, Diamond Valley Reservoir, built by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California to improve dry year reliability, was finished in 2003. The lake, located between Temecula and Hemet off Hwy. 79 at Newport Rd. in the Domenigoni/Diamond valleys, has a capacity of 800,000 acre-feet of water and is the largest-ever reservoir constructed in Southern California.
According to MWD’s website, “This reservoir is larger than Lake Havasu and took 4 years to fill. This reservoir will hold as much water as combining Castaic Lake, Lake Mathews, Pyramid Lake, Lake Perris and Lake Skinner into one.”
This reservoir almost doubles Southern California's surface storage capacity and secures six months of emergency storage in the event of a major earthquake.
In addition, the newest federal Central Valley Project reservoir, San Justo Reservoir, was constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as part of the San Felipe Division beginning in 1987. Water in San Justo comes from the massive San Luis Reservoir.
As Spreck Rosekrans of Environmental Defense points out, "Water supply development continues in California, though today's solutions are different from those adopted during the middle of the 20th century. Today there are few practical opportunities to build new dams that would impound the natural flow of a large river. Most of California's major rivers are either already dammed, protected by law, or too remote to be economically developed." (See "Recently Developed Water Storage Capacity in California, Environmental Defense, April 2007).
He continues, “Innovative water managers are finding, however, that they can extend supplies in a variety of ways, including increased efficiency, recycling, local storage, groundwater management, and transfers and exchanges with other agencies that have different sources and different needs.”
Rosekranz emphasizes that since 1990, 6,200,000 acre-feet of storage have been developed at six sites alone. This storage includes the 900,000 acre-feet of off-stream storage at Los Vaqueros and Diamond Valley, combined with groundwater aquifers.
These aquifers have been developed either to serve local communities or to use as "banks" that exchange ground and surface supplies, using California's vast network of canals, with distant communities in dry years, said Rosekrans.
Whether it was Schwarzenegger’s staff or the Governor himself who concocted these false statements about California water storage really doesn’t make any difference. However, I call on the Governor NOW to stop repeating these mistruths as justification for his mad drive to build the peripheral canal and two new reservoirs.
The two new proposed dams, Sites Dam in the Sacramento Valley and Temperance Dam on the San Joaquin River, are not considered to be economically feasible for the amount of additional water storage they would provide. “The cost of producing water at Sites and Temperance dams would be between $1,000 and $2,000 per acre foot. Who is going to buy this water at such a high price?” said John Beuttler, conservation director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance.
I believe that by promoting the myth that dams and water storage haven’t increased in California over the past 30 years, the Schwarzenegger administration is trying to create in the public mind the idea that water supply can be magically expanded by building two new dams and a peripheral canal. The problem isn’t that that there aren’t enough dams and water storage facilities in California – the problem is that virtually all of the economically feasible dam sites have already been taken and that California’s finite and fragile water resources have already been overallocated.
The governor’s call for more dams and a canal occurs at a time when the California Delta is at the worst ecological crisis in its history. Four species of pelagic (open water) species have crashed to record lows, the result of massive increases of water exports by the federal land state govnerments, the profileration of toxics in the water and the impact of invasive species. Exports from the Delta need to be reduced, not increased as the state and federal governments are proposing.
More recently, Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein met on August 21 in a “Delta Summit” to hear presentations by California’s top water experts working to “fix” the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta. “Experts and stakeholders discussed plans to improve California’s water infrastructure and fix the deteriorating Delta, which supplies clean water to 25 million people in Southern California,” according to the Governor’s office.
“Senator Feinstein and I agree that we need a long-term, sustainable Delta fix that improves conveyance, restores the ecosystem and increases water storage and conservation. We cannot wait until we have a Katrina-like disaster to attack this problem. Twenty five million Californians rely on the Delta for clean, safe water. It also irrigates hundreds of thousands of acres of Central Valley farmland and it is the backbone of California’s $32 billion agricultural industry.”
The problem with this statement is that you can’t have a “long term, sustainable Delta fix” that “improves conveyance,” “increases water storage” and restores the ecosystem at the same time, since Delta water is already overallocated. I’m glad that the Governor mentioned conservation, but so far, his administration has just paid lip service to conserving water.
Building a peripheral canal or constructing economically unfeasible dams will not provide the solution to California’s water problems. The solution is for California and the federal government to take drainage-impaired land in the San Joaquin Valley out of agricultural production and to promote innovative ways of water conservation that will allow California’s fragile water supply to serve both environmental needs and the needs of cities, farmers and industry. The state should also also move full speed ahead with building water desalinization plants in southern California that utilize the latest in technology to effectively increase the public water supply.
Arnold, when are you going to tell the truth about California water?
--
photo from the Governor's Press Office.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Dan wrote;
"Building a peripheral canal or constructing economically unfeasible dams will not provide the solution to California’s water problems. The solution is for California and the federal government to take drainage-impaired land in the San Joaquin Valley out of agricultural production and to promote innovative ways of water conservation that will allow California’s fragile water supply to serve both environmental needs and the needs of cities, farmers and industry."
Thanks Dan for refocusing on conservation of water as our primary goal. Would someone please fire Arnold SS and elect Dan Bacher governor? At least Dan's ideas of conservation make more logical sense than Arnold's foolish ploys to further big agribusiness..
There are many options for changing agricultural practices away from industrial plantation monoculture and restoring the land with polyculture, crop diversity and beneficial native plant/tree hedgerows, creating a farm in a forest (or wetlands) ecosystem that would provide a long term benefit of increased yields following soil restoration..
Adding native tree hedgerows around a farm's perimeter can reduce fertilizer runoff, soil erosion and provide habitat for beneficial predator insects, birds, frogs, etc.. to reduce the severity of pest insect outbreaks. This also reduces need for over irrigation as trees catch escaping water run-off, recycle water into air and block wind to reduce evaporation from hot, dry, windblown fields. Wind increases evaporation. The Community Alliance for Family Farms (CAFF) has some great info on this..
"CAFF Program Goals
* Reduction of sedimentation transport by using vegetative buffers to slow agricultural run-off into streams and waterways.
* Reduction of stream and waterway nutrient loading by increasing nutrient uptake with native plant hedgerows and buffer strips.
* Reduction of pesticide use by increasing beneficial insect populations with flowering hedgerows and increasing reliance on biological pest control methods.
* Increase overall ecological diversity by improving habitat for plant and animal species."
http://www.caff.org/programs/farmscaping/hedgerowin.shtml
Was anyone from CAFF invited to the table at Arnold's "Delta Summit"? Probably not is my guess. Even if they were, most likely ignored by the agribusiness corporations who demand their excess acre feet of rio agua. Seems like some land in the valley needs to change hands and be restored to the people who can learn to conserve water??
Here's a related issue on how industrial farming can also effect climate and rainfall, as witnessed in Austrailia's "rabbit proof fence";
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
"Rabbit-Proof Fence Has Unintended Consequences"
At Australia’s Bunny Fence, Variable Cloudiness Prompts Climate Study
August 14, 2007 -- By Sonal Noticewala, The New York Times
"A fence built to prevent rabbits from entering the Australian outback has unintentionally allowed scientists to study the effects of land use on regional climates.
The rabbit-proof fence — or bunny fence — in Western Australia was completed in 1907 and stretches about 2,000 miles. It acts as a boundary separating native vegetation from farmland. Within the fence area, scientists have observed a strange phenomenon: above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. But the sky on the farmland side is clear.
Researchers led by Tom Lyons of Murdoch University in Australia and Udaysankar S. Nair of the University of Alabama in Huntsville have come up with three possible explanations for this difference in cloudiness.
One theory is that the dark native vegetation absorbs and releases more heat into the atmosphere than the light-colored crops. These native plants release heat that combines with water vapor from the lower atmosphere, resulting in cloud formation.
Another hypothesis is that the warmer air on the native scrubland rises, creating a vacuum in the lower atmosphere that is then filled by cooler air from cropland across the fence. As a result, clouds form on the scrubland side.
A third idea is that a high concentration of aerosols — particles suspended in the atmosphere — on the agricultural side results in small water droplets and a decrease in the probability of rainfall. On the native landscape, the concentration of aerosols is lower, translating into larger droplets and more rainfall.
Within the last few decades, about 32 million acres of native vegetation have been converted to croplands west of the bunny fence. On the agricultural side of the fence, rainfall has been reduced by 20 percent since the 1970s.
Dr. Nair speculates that increases in the world’s population will prompt the clearing of more land to increase food production. But he wonders whether, in the long run, “we will reach a point of land clearing that will diminish food production,” because rainfall has decreased.
Dr. Lyons said he hoped the research would help scientists “understand the relationships between the land surface and atmosphere and to provide ideas for sustainable agricultural practices.”
The bunny fence, as it turns out, failed to prevent rabbits from entering the farmland, but it has successfully blocked kangaroos and emus."
article @;
http://environmental-economics.blogspot.com/2007/08/rabbit-proof-fence-has-unintended.html
If we consider the loss of oak groves and wetlands in the Sacto/San Jo valley ecosystem, maybe the air in the summer months are much drier without these trees and the moisture produced from their transpiration (evaporation thrrough leaves)??
Valley oak groves can also be seen as a food resource, and an essential foundation for woodland ecosystems. Even one oak tree remaining on a field can become an island refuge for a variety of species. How about helping our farmers connect those oak islands??
"Acorns may be California's single greatest natural resource. An oak tree can bear more than 400 pounds of acorns a year. There are an estimated 1 billion oak trees in California. That's hundreds of millions of pounds of nutrient that serves as the staple for more kinds of creatures than any other food source in the state. But the bulk of nutrients oaks churn out is only the beginning of their contribution. Oak trees form the organizational backbone of numerous habitats from coastal valley bottoms to highland meadows, providing food, shelter, and stability for whole communities of organisms. According to a 1997 University of California study, California's oak woodlands harbor more biodiversity than any other major habitat type in the state: At least 4,000 kinds of insects inhabit them, along with 2,000 kinds of plants, thousands of fungi and lichens, 170 different birds, 60 amphibians and reptiles, and 100 different mammals."
article @;
http://www.baynature.com/2003octdec/v03n04_essentialtree.html
"Building a peripheral canal or constructing economically unfeasible dams will not provide the solution to California’s water problems. The solution is for California and the federal government to take drainage-impaired land in the San Joaquin Valley out of agricultural production and to promote innovative ways of water conservation that will allow California’s fragile water supply to serve both environmental needs and the needs of cities, farmers and industry."
Thanks Dan for refocusing on conservation of water as our primary goal. Would someone please fire Arnold SS and elect Dan Bacher governor? At least Dan's ideas of conservation make more logical sense than Arnold's foolish ploys to further big agribusiness..
There are many options for changing agricultural practices away from industrial plantation monoculture and restoring the land with polyculture, crop diversity and beneficial native plant/tree hedgerows, creating a farm in a forest (or wetlands) ecosystem that would provide a long term benefit of increased yields following soil restoration..
Adding native tree hedgerows around a farm's perimeter can reduce fertilizer runoff, soil erosion and provide habitat for beneficial predator insects, birds, frogs, etc.. to reduce the severity of pest insect outbreaks. This also reduces need for over irrigation as trees catch escaping water run-off, recycle water into air and block wind to reduce evaporation from hot, dry, windblown fields. Wind increases evaporation. The Community Alliance for Family Farms (CAFF) has some great info on this..
"CAFF Program Goals
* Reduction of sedimentation transport by using vegetative buffers to slow agricultural run-off into streams and waterways.
* Reduction of stream and waterway nutrient loading by increasing nutrient uptake with native plant hedgerows and buffer strips.
* Reduction of pesticide use by increasing beneficial insect populations with flowering hedgerows and increasing reliance on biological pest control methods.
* Increase overall ecological diversity by improving habitat for plant and animal species."
http://www.caff.org/programs/farmscaping/hedgerowin.shtml
Was anyone from CAFF invited to the table at Arnold's "Delta Summit"? Probably not is my guess. Even if they were, most likely ignored by the agribusiness corporations who demand their excess acre feet of rio agua. Seems like some land in the valley needs to change hands and be restored to the people who can learn to conserve water??
Here's a related issue on how industrial farming can also effect climate and rainfall, as witnessed in Austrailia's "rabbit proof fence";
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
"Rabbit-Proof Fence Has Unintended Consequences"
At Australia’s Bunny Fence, Variable Cloudiness Prompts Climate Study
August 14, 2007 -- By Sonal Noticewala, The New York Times
"A fence built to prevent rabbits from entering the Australian outback has unintentionally allowed scientists to study the effects of land use on regional climates.
The rabbit-proof fence — or bunny fence — in Western Australia was completed in 1907 and stretches about 2,000 miles. It acts as a boundary separating native vegetation from farmland. Within the fence area, scientists have observed a strange phenomenon: above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. But the sky on the farmland side is clear.
Researchers led by Tom Lyons of Murdoch University in Australia and Udaysankar S. Nair of the University of Alabama in Huntsville have come up with three possible explanations for this difference in cloudiness.
One theory is that the dark native vegetation absorbs and releases more heat into the atmosphere than the light-colored crops. These native plants release heat that combines with water vapor from the lower atmosphere, resulting in cloud formation.
Another hypothesis is that the warmer air on the native scrubland rises, creating a vacuum in the lower atmosphere that is then filled by cooler air from cropland across the fence. As a result, clouds form on the scrubland side.
A third idea is that a high concentration of aerosols — particles suspended in the atmosphere — on the agricultural side results in small water droplets and a decrease in the probability of rainfall. On the native landscape, the concentration of aerosols is lower, translating into larger droplets and more rainfall.
Within the last few decades, about 32 million acres of native vegetation have been converted to croplands west of the bunny fence. On the agricultural side of the fence, rainfall has been reduced by 20 percent since the 1970s.
Dr. Nair speculates that increases in the world’s population will prompt the clearing of more land to increase food production. But he wonders whether, in the long run, “we will reach a point of land clearing that will diminish food production,” because rainfall has decreased.
Dr. Lyons said he hoped the research would help scientists “understand the relationships between the land surface and atmosphere and to provide ideas for sustainable agricultural practices.”
The bunny fence, as it turns out, failed to prevent rabbits from entering the farmland, but it has successfully blocked kangaroos and emus."
article @;
http://environmental-economics.blogspot.com/2007/08/rabbit-proof-fence-has-unintended.html
If we consider the loss of oak groves and wetlands in the Sacto/San Jo valley ecosystem, maybe the air in the summer months are much drier without these trees and the moisture produced from their transpiration (evaporation thrrough leaves)??
Valley oak groves can also be seen as a food resource, and an essential foundation for woodland ecosystems. Even one oak tree remaining on a field can become an island refuge for a variety of species. How about helping our farmers connect those oak islands??
"Acorns may be California's single greatest natural resource. An oak tree can bear more than 400 pounds of acorns a year. There are an estimated 1 billion oak trees in California. That's hundreds of millions of pounds of nutrient that serves as the staple for more kinds of creatures than any other food source in the state. But the bulk of nutrients oaks churn out is only the beginning of their contribution. Oak trees form the organizational backbone of numerous habitats from coastal valley bottoms to highland meadows, providing food, shelter, and stability for whole communities of organisms. According to a 1997 University of California study, California's oak woodlands harbor more biodiversity than any other major habitat type in the state: At least 4,000 kinds of insects inhabit them, along with 2,000 kinds of plants, thousands of fungi and lichens, 170 different birds, 60 amphibians and reptiles, and 100 different mammals."
article @;
http://www.baynature.com/2003octdec/v03n04_essentialtree.html
Thanks for your kind words about my article - and your listing of different and creative options for water conservation.
No Delta residents, anglers or Indian Tribes - those most impacted by water exports - were invited to the "Delta Summit," as far as I can ascertain.
No Delta residents, anglers or Indian Tribes - those most impacted by water exports - were invited to the "Delta Summit," as far as I can ascertain.
You can always tell the true agenda of an article like this by looking at the last paragraph:
"The state should also also move full speed ahead with building water desalinization plants in southern California that utilize the latest in technology to effectively increase the public water supply."
Point one: many of the desalination plants will be privately owned and operated. This is just an attempt to transfer control of public water resources to private interestts, as happened up in Felton with CalAm water. See http://aquafornia.com/archives/457 for more on this privatization scam.
Point two: all these desalination plants are energy hogs - which is why the natural gas and coal utilities are pushing for them - while they are also trying to halt the passage of AB1470, a bill that would include solar hot water heating in the state renewable energy tax rebate program:
http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/energy/solar-hot-water
The desalination push is a massive political effort backed by global engineering firms. Even if the only option was desalination (and water conservation is far cheaper), the backers of this push have refused to consider renewable energy as the power source.
In Australia, they are building solar-powered desal plants - see
http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/lowtemp/desal.html
Why isn't this the case in California? Because fossil fuel interests fear loss of profits if renewable energy takes off, and they have political tools on city councils, state legislatures, governors' offices, etc.
"The state should also also move full speed ahead with building water desalinization plants in southern California that utilize the latest in technology to effectively increase the public water supply."
Point one: many of the desalination plants will be privately owned and operated. This is just an attempt to transfer control of public water resources to private interestts, as happened up in Felton with CalAm water. See http://aquafornia.com/archives/457 for more on this privatization scam.
Point two: all these desalination plants are energy hogs - which is why the natural gas and coal utilities are pushing for them - while they are also trying to halt the passage of AB1470, a bill that would include solar hot water heating in the state renewable energy tax rebate program:
http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/energy/solar-hot-water
The desalination push is a massive political effort backed by global engineering firms. Even if the only option was desalination (and water conservation is far cheaper), the backers of this push have refused to consider renewable energy as the power source.
In Australia, they are building solar-powered desal plants - see
http://www.rise.org.au/info/Tech/lowtemp/desal.html
Why isn't this the case in California? Because fossil fuel interests fear loss of profits if renewable energy takes off, and they have political tools on city councils, state legislatures, governors' offices, etc.
For more information:
http://www.citizen.org/california/water/de...
"You can always tell the true agenda of an article like this by looking at the last paragraph:" Ike, your commentary, on this article and others, is thought-provoking and appreciated, however you also come off as a "know-it-all." Let's talk about issues and work together, but not make assumptions about the "true agenda" of articles. I am not convinced that Dan wrote this article with anything but the best of intentions. You make it sound like he is working for the utilities industry. Can you phrase your critiques in a more productive style?
Well, the author should have done his homework. He criticizes the governor for 'lying about California water' and then goes on to promote desalination - which is exactly what Arnold is really pushing.
Anyone who pays attention to the topic should realize that dams are a dead end and that no more large dams will ever be built in California - eventually, Hetch Hetchy itself will be removed. Arnold knows this, and so should any journalist who covers water and energy issues in California.
No, the big political push right now is for desalination. At least 18 plants are in the works for California, and the initial steps were funded by Proposition 50, the "Safe, Clean Drinking Water Initiative" - which, by the way is a good example of how initiatives are used for purposes quite different from what they're presented as. Natural gas companies are pushing this in order to increase electricity demand - while at the same time, they are fighting to prevent solar hot water heating from being expanded in California.
There's also evidence that this is yet another attempt to privatize California's water resources and transfer their control to private interests - the same thing that San Francisco-based Bechtel tried to do in Bolivia. All this information is freely available online, and one doesn't need to be a 'know-it-all' to find it - one just has to do their homework.
Anyone who pays attention to the topic should realize that dams are a dead end and that no more large dams will ever be built in California - eventually, Hetch Hetchy itself will be removed. Arnold knows this, and so should any journalist who covers water and energy issues in California.
No, the big political push right now is for desalination. At least 18 plants are in the works for California, and the initial steps were funded by Proposition 50, the "Safe, Clean Drinking Water Initiative" - which, by the way is a good example of how initiatives are used for purposes quite different from what they're presented as. Natural gas companies are pushing this in order to increase electricity demand - while at the same time, they are fighting to prevent solar hot water heating from being expanded in California.
There's also evidence that this is yet another attempt to privatize California's water resources and transfer their control to private interests - the same thing that San Francisco-based Bechtel tried to do in Bolivia. All this information is freely available online, and one doesn't need to be a 'know-it-all' to find it - one just has to do their homework.
"Anyone who pays attention to the topic should realize that dams are a dead end and that no more large dams will ever be built in California - eventually, Hetch Hetchy itself will be removed. Arnold knows this, and so should any journalist who covers water and energy issues in California."
Did you actually read my article, other than my comment at the end? The point I made was that virtually all of the cost effective dam sites have been taken! However, the Schwarzenegger is really pushing for Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs, in spite of the water costing $1,000 to $2,000 per acre foot.
And how do you know that "no more large dams will ever be built in California?" Are you so arrogant that you believe that you can predict the future? Just the fact that Sites and Temperance Flat and other large dams aren't cost effective doesn't mean they won't be built!
I think you're way too optimistic about Hetch-Hetchy being removed by the SFPUC. I don't think it's a done deal - the SFPUC has fought dam removal of Hetch-Hetchy for years, since it regards the reservoir as the "crown jewel" of their water system. It will take a monumental effort by conservation groups, Indian Tribes and fishing groups to bring it down. The SFPUC also continues to fight efforts to remove its diversion dam on Alameda Creek in the Sunol Regional Wilderness Area - a dam that prevents endangered steelhead from making their way upstream.
"No, the big political push right now is for desalination. At least 18 plants are in the works for California, and the initial steps were funded by Proposition 50, the "Safe, Clean Drinking Water Initiative" - which, by the way is a good example of how initiatives are used for purposes quite different from what they're presented as."
I put the sentence about desalinization at the end as an alternative afterthought - and I regret that I did because as you pointed out, desalinization, if done the way that Schwarzenegger wants to do it, will be indeed worse for the environment. Yes, water conservation and the removal of drainage impaired land from agricultural production are much more viable alternatives.
However, desalination plants with sub-seafloor intake systems use sand as a natural filter and can eliminate impingement and entrainment of marine organisms, reduce chemical applications during pretreatment and significantly cut energy costs. Sub-seafloor intake systems are an "economical, reliable and sustainable alternative to open ocean intake systems," according to the Surfrider Foundation and other groups opposed to the Carlsbad Desalinization Plant.
I am adamantly opposed to the privatization of public trust resources - that's why I'm against building the peripheral canal, more dams and the type of destructive desalinization plants that Schwarzenegger supports. With the removal of drainage impaired land from agricultural production on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and increased water conservation we can have enough water for people, fish, farmers and the environment.
Also, you seem to minimize the Governor's push for the peripheral canal. I have been to the press conferences, meetings and workshops about the peripheral canal and the Delta - and I believe that Schwarzenegger really intends to construct this canal and the Temperance Flat and Sites Dams to increase water exports from northern California. A tremendous amount of money and staff time has been invested in Schwarzenegger's Delta Vision process and campaign to build the canal and dams.
Finally, I opposed Proposition 50 because it amounts to yet another initiative to subsidize corporations and privatize public trust resources. I am completely opposed to water privatization! Have I made myself clear?
Whenever I rewrite the article, I plan to take the mention of desalinization out of the piece because of the possibility of somebody like yourself again getting the wrong idea - and missing the key point of my article - that Schwarzenegger is pushing his campaign for a peripheral canal and dams based on lies and deception.
If he succeeds, an already imperiled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecoystem will get even worse. This destruction of the ecosystem will result in the collapse of king salmon, steelhead, white sturgeon, green sturgeon, herring and Dungeness crab populations along the California coast and much of the Oregon Coast. The loss of the California Delta, the most significant estuary along the West Coast, will be an ecological disaster of incalcuable proportions.
Did you actually read my article, other than my comment at the end? The point I made was that virtually all of the cost effective dam sites have been taken! However, the Schwarzenegger is really pushing for Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs, in spite of the water costing $1,000 to $2,000 per acre foot.
And how do you know that "no more large dams will ever be built in California?" Are you so arrogant that you believe that you can predict the future? Just the fact that Sites and Temperance Flat and other large dams aren't cost effective doesn't mean they won't be built!
I think you're way too optimistic about Hetch-Hetchy being removed by the SFPUC. I don't think it's a done deal - the SFPUC has fought dam removal of Hetch-Hetchy for years, since it regards the reservoir as the "crown jewel" of their water system. It will take a monumental effort by conservation groups, Indian Tribes and fishing groups to bring it down. The SFPUC also continues to fight efforts to remove its diversion dam on Alameda Creek in the Sunol Regional Wilderness Area - a dam that prevents endangered steelhead from making their way upstream.
"No, the big political push right now is for desalination. At least 18 plants are in the works for California, and the initial steps were funded by Proposition 50, the "Safe, Clean Drinking Water Initiative" - which, by the way is a good example of how initiatives are used for purposes quite different from what they're presented as."
I put the sentence about desalinization at the end as an alternative afterthought - and I regret that I did because as you pointed out, desalinization, if done the way that Schwarzenegger wants to do it, will be indeed worse for the environment. Yes, water conservation and the removal of drainage impaired land from agricultural production are much more viable alternatives.
However, desalination plants with sub-seafloor intake systems use sand as a natural filter and can eliminate impingement and entrainment of marine organisms, reduce chemical applications during pretreatment and significantly cut energy costs. Sub-seafloor intake systems are an "economical, reliable and sustainable alternative to open ocean intake systems," according to the Surfrider Foundation and other groups opposed to the Carlsbad Desalinization Plant.
I am adamantly opposed to the privatization of public trust resources - that's why I'm against building the peripheral canal, more dams and the type of destructive desalinization plants that Schwarzenegger supports. With the removal of drainage impaired land from agricultural production on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and increased water conservation we can have enough water for people, fish, farmers and the environment.
Also, you seem to minimize the Governor's push for the peripheral canal. I have been to the press conferences, meetings and workshops about the peripheral canal and the Delta - and I believe that Schwarzenegger really intends to construct this canal and the Temperance Flat and Sites Dams to increase water exports from northern California. A tremendous amount of money and staff time has been invested in Schwarzenegger's Delta Vision process and campaign to build the canal and dams.
Finally, I opposed Proposition 50 because it amounts to yet another initiative to subsidize corporations and privatize public trust resources. I am completely opposed to water privatization! Have I made myself clear?
Whenever I rewrite the article, I plan to take the mention of desalinization out of the piece because of the possibility of somebody like yourself again getting the wrong idea - and missing the key point of my article - that Schwarzenegger is pushing his campaign for a peripheral canal and dams based on lies and deception.
If he succeeds, an already imperiled Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecoystem will get even worse. This destruction of the ecosystem will result in the collapse of king salmon, steelhead, white sturgeon, green sturgeon, herring and Dungeness crab populations along the California coast and much of the Oregon Coast. The loss of the California Delta, the most significant estuary along the West Coast, will be an ecological disaster of incalcuable proportions.
Arnold has a reputation for sneaky backhanded tactics. For example, he publicly supports an anti-global warming campaign, and then he turns around and fires Chairman Robert Sawyer of the CARB, and replaces him with Mary Nichols, who has ties to fossil fuel interests and who is married to an Exxon attorney:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/18/MNGBRKMAO.DTL&feed=rss.news
As far as Schwarzenegger's position on desalination, see this:
"Schwarzenegger Adminstration Supports Desalination Projects"
In early March, the San Diego Tribune reported that Governor Schwarzenegger's administration fully supports building desalination projects along California's shoreline. Following reports that Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas told members of Congress this week that the agency opposes desalination plants on the coast, the administration entered the debate. California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman said, "From our perspective, desalination is a big part of our water supply needs here in California. We need to do everything we can to push that technology." A draft Coastal Commission report raises questions about the environmental effects of seawater desalination. Commissioners are expected to continue reviewing the 56-page policy paper when they meet in Monterey later in March. For the full article, visit the following website:"
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040312-9999-news_1n12desal.html.
It looks to me like Schwarzenegger is simply using the threat of building dams to push his real agenda, which is building energy-hog desalination plants all along the California coast. At the same time, Schwarzenegger is pushing for massive liquified natural gas imports via Baja Mexico (along with Dianne Feinstein).
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=15330
This is simply the wrong way to go. Water conservation is what Southern California needs, not new desalination plants. They've got too many swimming pools, golf courses and lawns, in a region that his really mostly desert. Similarly, California agriculture needs to switch to water conservation strategies - current practices are incredibly wasteful, and then there's the ongoing groundwater overdraft.
Unfortunately, by promoting desalination you were playing right into Arnold's sneaky agenda.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/18/MNGBRKMAO.DTL&feed=rss.news
As far as Schwarzenegger's position on desalination, see this:
"Schwarzenegger Adminstration Supports Desalination Projects"
In early March, the San Diego Tribune reported that Governor Schwarzenegger's administration fully supports building desalination projects along California's shoreline. Following reports that Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas told members of Congress this week that the agency opposes desalination plants on the coast, the administration entered the debate. California Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman said, "From our perspective, desalination is a big part of our water supply needs here in California. We need to do everything we can to push that technology." A draft Coastal Commission report raises questions about the environmental effects of seawater desalination. Commissioners are expected to continue reviewing the 56-page policy paper when they meet in Monterey later in March. For the full article, visit the following website:"
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040312-9999-news_1n12desal.html.
It looks to me like Schwarzenegger is simply using the threat of building dams to push his real agenda, which is building energy-hog desalination plants all along the California coast. At the same time, Schwarzenegger is pushing for massive liquified natural gas imports via Baja Mexico (along with Dianne Feinstein).
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=15330
This is simply the wrong way to go. Water conservation is what Southern California needs, not new desalination plants. They've got too many swimming pools, golf courses and lawns, in a region that his really mostly desert. Similarly, California agriculture needs to switch to water conservation strategies - current practices are incredibly wasteful, and then there's the ongoing groundwater overdraft.
Unfortunately, by promoting desalination you were playing right into Arnold's sneaky agenda.
"It looks to me like Schwarzenegger is simply using the threat of building dams to push his real agenda, which is building energy-hog desalination plants all along the California coast. At the same time, Schwarzenegger is pushing for massive liquified natural gas imports via Baja Mexico (along with Dianne Feinstein)."
Have you considered that his drive for energy-hog desalinization plants and the threat of building dams are the cover, or negotiating points, he will use to build the peripheral canal? There are a number of corporate-funded environmental groups that love the governor for his "stand" on global warming and his push for redundant "marine reserves." Some environmental leaders want to "work" with the governor on water issues because they believe his hype about being "green." I read their press releases and comments all of the time.
The Governor has invested a lot of time and money in pushing his peripheral canal. My belief is that he is trying to divide the fishing groups and Indian Tribes, who are adamantly against the peripheral canal, from some big, well-funded environmental groups who are willing to make deals with Schwarzenegger.
My belief is that the governor may back off from building both new dams and some of the desalinization facilities in exchange for support on building a peripheral canal with bogus "environmental protections." Then the media and some environmental groups will applaud him for his "environmental vision" while he destroys the Bay-Delta Estuary with the peripheral canal - and sets up more "no fishing and public access" zones along the coast while the desalinization plants are constructed. I can't read the Governator's mind, but his actions and statements seem to be pointing to the scenario I have just described.
The amount and time of money his administration has invested towards building a peripheral canal makes it look like he is very serious about it. You don't need the two new dams to build a peripheral canal.
On other hand, he may very well want to build the new dams, the peripheral canal AND the desalinization facilities as one big, environmentally disastrous package.
Have you considered that his drive for energy-hog desalinization plants and the threat of building dams are the cover, or negotiating points, he will use to build the peripheral canal? There are a number of corporate-funded environmental groups that love the governor for his "stand" on global warming and his push for redundant "marine reserves." Some environmental leaders want to "work" with the governor on water issues because they believe his hype about being "green." I read their press releases and comments all of the time.
The Governor has invested a lot of time and money in pushing his peripheral canal. My belief is that he is trying to divide the fishing groups and Indian Tribes, who are adamantly against the peripheral canal, from some big, well-funded environmental groups who are willing to make deals with Schwarzenegger.
My belief is that the governor may back off from building both new dams and some of the desalinization facilities in exchange for support on building a peripheral canal with bogus "environmental protections." Then the media and some environmental groups will applaud him for his "environmental vision" while he destroys the Bay-Delta Estuary with the peripheral canal - and sets up more "no fishing and public access" zones along the coast while the desalinization plants are constructed. I can't read the Governator's mind, but his actions and statements seem to be pointing to the scenario I have just described.
The amount and time of money his administration has invested towards building a peripheral canal makes it look like he is very serious about it. You don't need the two new dams to build a peripheral canal.
On other hand, he may very well want to build the new dams, the peripheral canal AND the desalinization facilities as one big, environmentally disastrous package.
In the political sense, it seems that the general public in California is well aware of global warming and water and energy issues, and they really do want politicians to take action towards water conservation, renewable energy and widespread organic agriculture.
However, the politicians are largely controlled by entrenched fossil fuel and agribusiness interests who also have a lot of control over the US corporate media. Thus, we're seeing a massive greenwashing effort - while business-as-usual continues.
The refineries around the Bay Area are all trying to expand in order to process more foreign heavy crude oil, Sempra and Chevron are trying to build Liquified Natural Gas terminals in either California or Baja, Water privatization interests are pushing for big, privately owned desalination plants that will rely on that natural gas, and California electricity corps. are backing the construction of huge new power plants in the Black Rock Desert.
Meanwhile, environmental groups and the corporate media are lauding Arnold for being so 'green'. The whole thing just seems incredibly hypocritical to me. I just wish everyone would sit down and read Republican political consultant Frank Luntz's infamous memo:
http://www.luntzspeak.com/memo.html
"Despite poll numbers showing overwhelming concern for the environment, some members of the Republican leadership have decided it's easier to spend time, money and political capital on obscuring a bad record and bad policies than to develop sound environmental policies that protect public health and public lands."
"But don't take our word for it! To appreciate the amount of spin here, use this guide to help decode some of the sneakier communications tips, or read the memo for yourself."
Anyway, hope that helps. Good luck!
However, the politicians are largely controlled by entrenched fossil fuel and agribusiness interests who also have a lot of control over the US corporate media. Thus, we're seeing a massive greenwashing effort - while business-as-usual continues.
The refineries around the Bay Area are all trying to expand in order to process more foreign heavy crude oil, Sempra and Chevron are trying to build Liquified Natural Gas terminals in either California or Baja, Water privatization interests are pushing for big, privately owned desalination plants that will rely on that natural gas, and California electricity corps. are backing the construction of huge new power plants in the Black Rock Desert.
Meanwhile, environmental groups and the corporate media are lauding Arnold for being so 'green'. The whole thing just seems incredibly hypocritical to me. I just wish everyone would sit down and read Republican political consultant Frank Luntz's infamous memo:
http://www.luntzspeak.com/memo.html
"Despite poll numbers showing overwhelming concern for the environment, some members of the Republican leadership have decided it's easier to spend time, money and political capital on obscuring a bad record and bad policies than to develop sound environmental policies that protect public health and public lands."
"But don't take our word for it! To appreciate the amount of spin here, use this guide to help decode some of the sneakier communications tips, or read the memo for yourself."
Anyway, hope that helps. Good luck!
Dear Friend:
California continues to struggle with an extended drought, leaving many communities to urge voluntary conservation measures. Many of these conservation campaigns encourage every person to work to save just 20 gallons of water each day. I’m pleased to provide five simple ways to reach this goal.
Stop leaks. Fixing just one leaky faucet can go a long way in reaching the goal of saving 20 gallons of water a day. Some leaks are obvious, but others are hidden. Check with your utility company to find out how to check for leaks.
Replace an old toilet. Toilets use more water than any other usage in most homes. If your home was built before 1992 and the toilet has never been replaced, you should consider switching to a water efficient model. The oldest toilets can use upward of several gallons per flush. The newest toilets use no more than 1.6 gallons, some even less. And when you do, install a lower flow shower head which will save even more water.
Turn off the faucet whenever you can. Turning off the faucet when you brush your teeth can save three gallons a day. You can save about 5 gallons by reducing your shower by one or two minutes. If you turn off the hose while washing your car, you can save up to 150 gallons per wash.
Switch to Energy Star appliances, including your clothes washer and dish washer. These types of appliances use 35 to 50 percent less water and 50 percent less energy per load. You will save money on both your water and energy bills. And many local utilities offer rebates on the purchase of these products. And run these appliances only when they are really full. Washing partial loads wastes water and energy.
If you are thinking about changing your landscaping, consider plants that require less water. If you don’t want to change your landscaping, assess your irrigation needs. Water only when your yard is dry, and then apply only as much water as needed. Watering very early in the morning will also help conserve water because of reduced evaporation.
None of us know when this drought may come to an end, but if a significant number of Californians save 20 gallons of water each day, we may be able to avoid mandatory water conservation measures, while saving money on water and the energy needed to supply it.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
California continues to struggle with an extended drought, leaving many communities to urge voluntary conservation measures. Many of these conservation campaigns encourage every person to work to save just 20 gallons of water each day. I’m pleased to provide five simple ways to reach this goal.
Stop leaks. Fixing just one leaky faucet can go a long way in reaching the goal of saving 20 gallons of water a day. Some leaks are obvious, but others are hidden. Check with your utility company to find out how to check for leaks.
Replace an old toilet. Toilets use more water than any other usage in most homes. If your home was built before 1992 and the toilet has never been replaced, you should consider switching to a water efficient model. The oldest toilets can use upward of several gallons per flush. The newest toilets use no more than 1.6 gallons, some even less. And when you do, install a lower flow shower head which will save even more water.
Turn off the faucet whenever you can. Turning off the faucet when you brush your teeth can save three gallons a day. You can save about 5 gallons by reducing your shower by one or two minutes. If you turn off the hose while washing your car, you can save up to 150 gallons per wash.
Switch to Energy Star appliances, including your clothes washer and dish washer. These types of appliances use 35 to 50 percent less water and 50 percent less energy per load. You will save money on both your water and energy bills. And many local utilities offer rebates on the purchase of these products. And run these appliances only when they are really full. Washing partial loads wastes water and energy.
If you are thinking about changing your landscaping, consider plants that require less water. If you don’t want to change your landscaping, assess your irrigation needs. Water only when your yard is dry, and then apply only as much water as needed. Watering very early in the morning will also help conserve water because of reduced evaporation.
None of us know when this drought may come to an end, but if a significant number of Californians save 20 gallons of water each day, we may be able to avoid mandatory water conservation measures, while saving money on water and the energy needed to supply it.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
For more information:
http://boxer.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cf...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$115.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network