Slashdot Mirror
California Fights Drought With Data and Psychology, Yielding 5% Usage Reduction
dcblogs writes with an article about hackers using technology to mitigate the effects of drought. From the article: "California is facing its worst drought in more than 100 years, and one with no end in sight. But it is offering Silicon Valley opportunities. In one project, the East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland used customized usage reports .... that [compare] a customer's water use against average use for similar sized households. It uses a form of peer pressure to change behavior. A ... year-long pilot showed a 5% reduction in water usage. The utility said the reporting system could 'go a long way' toward helping the state meet its goal of a reducing water usage by 20% per capita statewide. In other tech related activities, the organizer of a water-tech focused hackathon, Hack the Drought is hoping this effort leads to new water conserving approaches. Overall, water tech supporters are working to bring more investor attention to this market. Imagine H2O, a non-profit, holds annual water tech contests and then helps with access to venture funding. The effort is focused on 'trying to address the market failure in the water sector,' Scott Bryan, the chief operating officer of Imagine H2O."
So, how long before they start redefining "average" down below the actual average so as to make even more people feel bad about themselves?
After all, it's pretty much just a line of code to reduce the value displayed under "average use" to be, well, whatever the coder wants it to be.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I might take the water use comparison as a challenge and try to use the most water. Isn't more better?
It's goal is to get water to people, not make as much money as possible from people.
Only an idiot wants to put resources needed for the most basic survival in the market.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Stop trying to farm and build huge cities in the desert. When you fuss about not being able to find enough water in the desert I just want to sit in my muddy, humid, rainy state... and watch you die of thirst.
so a group of peope had the brilliant idea of building massive cities and huge agricultural farmlands in a desert, made possible by unsustainable draining of acquifers and importation of water from other states.
and now they have a "drought"?
can't raise enough moisture for a tear over here....
Why not simply lower the water pressure by 10% to curb water usage?
What happened to slashdot's design? It's so much harder to read now. Bring back black text and white backgrounds! My eyes hurt reading here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Does anyone else see another annihilation of privacy here?
If you want to reduce water use then eliminate the corporate welfare for agriculture. Better yet, reduce the number of people in the strained geography. It's simple math: Total Resources Available = Resource Consumption Rate x Number of People
What's the best way to control this? Cost. Remove all the subsidies beyond a minimum X gallons per person. Let people and markets drive the rest.
There is merely a shortage of raw materials (H2O) for big agriculture.
Agriculture consumes 80% of the water in California and contributes 5% of the economy. There is sufficient water in California to supply the cities 5 times over.
But before you fly-over states get all self-righteous, think about this the next time you buy fresh salad greens in January.
Well, folks are used to paying too much for water. Walk down the beverage aisle in your local super market.
Markets can be good. There is so much water wasted due to inefficiencies and just plain stupidity - like having a lush lawn or golf course in the middle of the desert. If people really had to pay, it would be an incentive to be more efficient. Agriculture is not efficient with their use of water because it's so cheap and growing grass for lawns or golf courses are the dumbest uses of water I can think of.
Water use taxes are a better option because it won't make drinking and cooking water expensive but make stupid uses pay their way. I think there should be a special water tax on golf courses. They can afford it anyway. The same for lawns.
These old people move down to the Southwest for the desert weather and what do they do? Plant lawns and other water intensive plants that have no business being in the desert. And being old and rich, they put in golf courses, too. In the meantime, others have to deal with less water for drinking, cooking and agriculture.
Did the usage reports really result in a 5% drop in water usage, or is it the fact that for the past 4 months, you can't watch the news without hearing all about the drought conditions and how people have to stop flushing their toilets so much. Meanwhile, residential use accounts for only 10 - 15% of California's water use, so even if everyone cut their use by 20%, it really wouldn't solve the problem.
"These are not the faucets you are looking for."
Table-ized A.I.
You're right, we should let the free market sort it out. That way the water manufacturers will receive incentive to build more waters when the price of water rises to the level the oil companies are willing to pay to pump it into the ground to get $110 barrels of oil out.
Enjoy your bath at bottled-water prices.
In Denver we suffered through a drought that lasted a few years. There was a big campaign to get people to reduce their water usage - and it worked! People significantly reduced their water usage - so much that the water board was no longer getting the revenue that it said it needed. So, the rates went up.
Funny how the rates didn't go back down when the drought was over.
Also, not surprisingly, the golf courses got all the water they wanted.
I find residential usage citations vary from 5-13% of total California water usage. Let's say it's 10%. I'm having a hard time figuring out how cutting my usage by, say, a big 25% along with every other California resident is going to solve the problem when that represents maybe 2.5% of total water usage. Don't get me wrong, I see no reason to waste water unnecessarily, but I just don't get all the emphasis on residential usage when it's a drop in the bucket. What am I missing?
Water saving measures have drained funds from water taxes that are used to maintain the infrastructure...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
Meanwhile billions of gallons of water from California are, essentially, being exported to China.
NB: I apologize if the article is paywalled. The first look is free.
Proverbs 21:19
I do not understand why politicians wont do this. Raise the rates 400% and water usage will drop and in the end a true crises of NO WATER by the summer will be avoided.
The laws of supply and demand benefit everyone even including the consumer. Why don't the left wing politicians see this? It benefits the consumer as Lake Mead wont dry up totally.
When next winter when the snow and rain returns then you lower prices or keep them high while the reservoirs recover. ... oh heck who am I kidding. The top 3 big farm corporations will cry foul and go lobby some money to use up everyone's water at prices below demand and then freak out when no water is left. I hope I am not being too cynical but corruption is pissing me off.
http://saveie6.com/
The funny thing is they could use a sand filter to 100% stop the fish being killed
and transfer the water thru the sand into the system.
Sand filter is old tech and requires zero power.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
CA is suffering a lack of water because billions of gallons of fresh water have been dumped into the ocean in order to supposedly "save" an insignificant fish.
Latino immigrants vote Dem to get gov handouts which keep Dems in power. Dems in power cater to extremists in their own party resulting in CA's drought and CA's brainwashing of kindergarteners with the radical politics of alternative sexual lifestyles. CA is in bad shape now, but it is going to be one truly f***ed up place in 20 years.
You must be a farmer -- "screw the insignificant fish because I want to grow crops in the desert". Since the largest employer of Latino immigrants is agriculture, you'd think that if dems were giving latinos what they want, they'd give the farmers more water.
If you think CA is brainwashing kids with radical politics of alternative sexual lifestyles, you really ought to look around, it turns our that homosexuals have always been living among us, but are just now feeling comfortable coming out. When an NFL player comes out as gay and 85% of NFL players say they have no problem with gay teammates, then you know that it's not just some fringe group.
Some would say CA is suffering a lack of water because we're exporting billions of gallons of water overseas (indirectly, through Ag exports, which only accounts for about 5% of the economy)
I will take this seriously when they cease watering golf courses. Until then, it is just theater.
"...each course each day in Palm Springs consumes as much water as an American family of four uses in four years. "
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
Try the answer that everyone else uses. You simply must issue loads and loads of building permits. Do everything possible to attract millions of new residents. Keep soliciting businesses to move into the state. That will keep you inline with other states with wretched issues. Make certain that birth control and abortions are impossible to get or so expensive that people never use them. And whatever you do please do not build resevoirs, canals, or any other method of storing water. Be certain that you do not plant ground covers that would prevent water losses. Please do turn the land into roof tops, asphalt and concrete. And do not begin the evacuation now. Film crews love it when the dead and dying litter the streets in large numbers. Fox News will blame it all on Obama anyway. The rest of the nation can engage in hand wringing while chanting ain't it awful. Carpet baggers will come in droves buying the rich estates for pennies and new books will be sold on late night TV about how everyone can get rich taking possession of abandoned California properties. The National Guard will arrive handing out two ready to eat meals but no water.
decided that 3" fish are more important than people
Which "people" are those, corporate farmers that are so uncompetitive that they can't survive without massive subsidies? The ones that grow rice in semi-arid areas? The ones that can't bear the cost of efficient irrigation techniques? Cry me a river (bad joke intended).
I was on an island that always has a fresh water shortage. Beside each toilet there was a little sign. "If it's yellow let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down." If we can get over the issue of having pee sit in the toilet we can reduce water consumption significantly. Pee does not need to be flushed immediately.
First, are you in the area effected by the drought?
Second, are you in an area that is very cold without snow?
Third, the pipes are not always 14' below ground. Your house is probably above ground so there must me a pipe that goes from 14' below ground to at least ground level to get to your house. I bet if you go outside you will find a shut off valve between the water main and your house. I doubt very much that the valve is 14' below ground level. It is that section that might freeze.
And why is it WRONG to stop wasting?
Because at a certain point, you eliminate all waste and start cutting into actual need. That can have a detrimental effect on the economy and well-being of the people. Not flushing the toilet as much as you used to, for example, is a good example of eliminating waste. Dumping all your sewage out into the street rather than flush the toilet at *all*--that's beyond waste and into need.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Just a recommendation for lowering your local water consumption...
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Tell me more about global warming, please.
Sure thing.
The problem is not a "market failure", it is that the market is distorted. If the true laws of supply and demand were allowed to work on the water market in California, then water would be a lot more expensive right now because of how rare it is due to drought.
If the people are using too much water then raise the price. Define what consitutes a "drought" in strict terms (average rainfall below some amount for X days in a row), and raise the price per gallon of water an extra 50% during these drought conditions. Add in a credit for people below the poverty line so that they don't have issues.
Usage problems will be solved overnight. Charge people more and they will use less. Wallet pressure works a lot better than "peer pressure".
They just need to do what they've done in other western "dry" states and price water on consumption. In my state I pay a normal about $30 a month for the first 7000 gallons, which is enough for most moderately sized households internal uses. But the next 7000 gallons cost me double the $30 and the third set of 7000 costs me triple. In the summer my water bill goes from $30 a month to almost $300. This progressive pricing was introduced during our last big drought and water consumption went down 20% almost immediately and has continued to drop every year. Xeroscaping became very popular.
In fact I'm in the process of ripping up several hundred feet of sod to be replaced with native plants.
That link to 'hackthedrought.org' is blocked because "Suspicious Content. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization."
Teach them to put the word " |-| @ C | " into their URL! Nasty terrorists!
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
yes but anything that
1 solves the problem permanently
2 does not generate campaign dollars
3 is cheap
4 does not have a PAC bribing behind it
5 is simple to implement
6 can't be used to generate kickbacks for "Friends"
is a non starter in this government
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Eliminate all waste? In this economic paradigm which sole purpose is to encourage waste [money-goods-money-goods, as fast as we can because we take a slice at every transaction right?]?
I think you worry too soon. It's like worrying that the Sun will go out one day...
a good way to focus on what people need is to keep raising the prices little by little. people will make good choices about the best use of water. trust me, we're a long way from going back to chamber pots. we can start by cutting back on lush green lawns. we live in a desert climate, for goodness sake! look around, do you see any natural parks with this kind of field?
Valid point unless situation will get so severe that enough water sources actually run dry. Then it is based on luck who gets the water and who doesn't. Perhaps that point is still far away but I wouldn't like bet on it if the drought continues.
You can't really expect thieves and liars to be truthful.
The corporations are almost as bad as the politicians they own.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
That is always the problem when you socialize the cost of using a limited resource and artificially increase demand by controlling the cost. You get people who waste the resource because "someone else" is really paying for it.
All goods and services purchased as utilities are limited in their quantity, but since consumers don't pay the "real" cost directly, they use more.
But, your obviously trollish tongue-in-cheek solution is not what is called for. Simply removing ALL government subsidies from basic utilities and requiring that the real cost be paid by the end users is sufficient, along with removal of barriers to adjust cost to be appropriate to the available supply.
The merging of corporate and government power is fascism,
is basically what Mussolini said, and that is what we have to be sure.
When the citizen serfs pay 10 times or more then what the Big AgriBiz
folks pay then the game is rigged.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
How are farmers wasting massive amounts of water? Do you know anything about food production and agricultural water use in general? American farmers do export a lot of food, but your food prices are low because of the wealth of food grown right in your backyard. Where are farmers growing food where they shouldn't be? Do you have an alternative? In many places, the best farmland is under cities now, perhaps pushing farmer to more marginal lands. This is an unfortunate consequence of growth. Granted.
Farming is under more pressure than any other industry to use water efficiently and effectively. And farmers are more aware than anyone else how scarce it is and how badly drought can affect them. Especially in California, irrigation is done using the most efficient means possible. Drip irrigation, low-pressure center pivots that put water down close to the plants. Irrigation losses to evaporation during irrigation are about as low as they can get. Current pivots are, depending on the wind, around 85% efficient, which is pretty good. Could we get better? maybe so. In the end, though, it still takes a lot of water to raise vegetables, grains, fruits. All things that, when they are in season, you enjoy, locally sourced.
I heard an astounding sound bite on the news once. A woman was upset about having her city water rationed in Reno, NV, and, I kid you not, said to the interviewer, "Why do farmers need all that water anyway? Why can't they buy their food at a grocery store like everyone else?" Just. Wow.
What was the uncertainty level for that study? 5% seems like it might be in the noise.
ROFLMAO, and that is likely the best description of the reality of this situation.
The corruption is off the charts.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
http://www.naturalnews.com/029...
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
Well we seem to be breaking all time cold and snowfall records so...
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
You have a point, but you're a long way from cutting into actual need.
I live in a country where everybody has access to high quality ground water. Our avarage daily water consumption is per capita less than a third of that of a the US, where you don't have access to high quality water. (our tap water is cleaner than bottled water.)
I was shocked by the disregard for water the first time I visited the US. Just as an example, your toilet bowls are huge lakes of water compared to what I'm used to. Flushing all that water just made me feel guilty.
Thanks! I always appreciate a good XKCD.
Fact: The cost of water is TINY even when it is scarce because it's a socialized resource. Bringing in water great distances can be costly initially unless done really poorly it eventually ends up cheap.
The REAL cost of water that you really pay for is the SEWAGE cost. SEWAGE processing is some expensive shit. ;-) They couldn't measure sewage but they could measure the water they also run into your house; also done by the city. Every place that doubled the two services up (almost everywhere with city water) puts the sewage treatment costs into the water costs. It's not precise but if you use a lot of water you are more likely putting out more sewage too. This is why most cities forbid wells once they run city sewer because then people get nearly free sewer service because they don't use the metered water service.
I know somebody who invented a sewage measuring device, but it never got anywhere because they don't want the added cost of requiring it in new developments... plus they'd keep measuring the water too and water meters are cheaper. Averaging out the sewage costs to water usage is a simple cheap accounting solution.
If you really want to cut water use, start making people store their own rain water and subsidize it with the water bills; eventually removing most the city water system. Sewage would also have to be done along with this, obviously. That would require a great deal of changes since sewage is a complex problem nobody thinks about (we just pollute... BTW, modern treatment is only partially effective.) Then you have to ban products being put down the drain... we should have done that already... those flushed drugs end up in the ecosystem and back in us (not to mention the bad kinds of microbiological evolution it promotes.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Native of Israel here - we got screwed by our gov and water utilities company. As we had our share of droughts besides the campaigns the water prices got raised dramatically. But during the not no droughty years they didn't reduce back the water price rates. There are quite many people around angry about this.
Well right now the farmers are paying about 10 - 100 times less then the residents.
When you get equal pricing that will solve this problem.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
...happen is gearing up for mud slides relief and prevention..Cause it is going to rain....
This is a classic tale of activist government run amok — and, too, of the peculiarly suicidal instincts that rich and educated societies exhibit when they reach maturity.
Suicidal. You know, there are those of us that would argue that having concern for non-human life is, while indeed an indication of societal maturity, not quite the same as being suicidal. Some might even say that exclusive preoccupation with human concerns is very small-minded and lacks any rational basis.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
What a well thought through and nuanced position that is. As a rule, famine doesn't happen because people live in a desert. It happens because of crop failure. Or war. Or any combination of a number of social and geo-political factors. But because they live in a desert? Not so much. Further, the "great" Sam's position implies that people have a choice about where they live. Again, not so much.
The only drought proof source of water in California is the Pacific Ocean. Build large scale solar or nuclear plants in the desert, send power to shorline or offshore desalination plants, and pipe the water back. This combined with treating sewage water dumped into the ocean is the way of the future. Some states and countries are already doing one or both, but it has to be done at a higher level of government, not each individual water entity. I started getting similar "average usage" reports a couple of months ago from SDGE, probably for the same reason.
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.
Isn't there a way to use salt water to change to usable water to drink and stuff?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
If it weren't for anti-child-labor laws and minimum-wage laws, a lot of the farm work attracting illegal immigrants could be done by the children of Americans. This is part of California's problem.
And "alternative sexual lifestyles" covers more ground than just homosexual couples: single parent families, and the irresponsible parents who are (in growing and unreported numbers) abandoning their children. Children need to be taught how to support themselves and nurture their own future children, rather than feel good about whatever they do and feel indignant about those who do support themselves
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The market will direct water from rivers to users, rather than from rivers to the ocean. Predatory government ensures misallocation of resources.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Even at greatly increased prices tap water used for drinking does not amount to much money. That and a couple of flushes a day is all anyone needs, and that's not enough to justify a cutout for the poor.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If that is truely all one needs then this cutout would not be expensive would it? And it would be paid for from the increased revenues. This is the way all necessities should be costed. Equal opportunity over equal outcomes.
If it weren't for anti-child-labor laws and minimum-wage laws, a lot of the farm work attracting illegal immigrants could be done by the children of Americans. This is part of California's problem.
You so rarely hear the argument *for* child labor. If we got rid of the child labor laws and minimum wage laws we could also bring back a lot of the manufacturing work that we send to Chinese children.
Is that a good thing?
And "alternative sexual lifestyles" covers more ground than just homosexual couples: single parent families, and the irresponsible parents who are (in growing and unreported numbers) abandoning their children. Children need to be taught how to support themselves and nurture their own future children, rather than feel good about whatever they do and feel indignant about those who do support themselves
That's the first I've heard of procreation called an "alternative sexual lifestyle".
I don't mean are they trying to use less water like everyone else. I mean - have they mandated ZERO growth for their cities? NO new housing, NO new businesses, NO new developments, NO new malls? If not, why not? If this is a water crisis then at the minimum you need to cut all NEW drains on the water supply to zero.
If they have not done this, and will not ever do it (as seems likely) then the problem will never be made any better. Any conservation gains will be eaten up by new demands, add infinitem.
Desalinization: solution to near unlimited water
Am I the only one who notices that California borders the Pacific Ocean?
Am I the only one who things that California should desalinate the water, and pump from the ocean?
California doesn't have water because they just want to steal water from other states at a cheaper cost than it would take to produce their own.
Ok, so desalinization is too expensive?
What if California could increase the water supply without desalinization? If only there was a Great Salt Lake a few states to the east that had a natural evaporation system to desalinate water. This natural evaporation system would increase water that flows from the Rocky Mountains mountains to California. Then California could pump Ocean salt water into such a lake, keeping it full so more water is in the rivers running toward California.
Now, are their problems to solve to make these solutions work? Sure. But they are solvable.
Turn all the canals off! Build lakes, resevoirs up in the mountains and preserve the water for future use. The Core of Eng. should be shot for building the canals. Very bad planning, nobody could forsee the time when Cal. would NEED water. I guarantee you people were screaming that the water should be preserved not thrown away. Tell the town fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers that okayed this catastraphy that they just lost their right to live in Calif. Shame on you!
Agree with you on the waste, but probably worth noting that the US also has extremely productive industry and agriculture... which both (IIRC) tend to use much more water than households.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling