Pages

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Water, Water, Nowhere. Quick, Git Mah Shovel Ready

Sounds good to me. Los Osos should get in line with a tin cup in one hand and a shovel in another. We’ve still got a whole lot of low-flow change-outs left to do. They’re “shovel ready” right now, aren’t they?

CA485 Water Efficiency Projects Ready-to-go Across California to Create Jobs, Boost Clean Water SupplyAuthor: American RiversPublished on Jan 24, 2009 - 6:59:36 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. Jan. 23, 2009 - At least 485 water efficiency projects in California are ready to go and will create jobs and improve clean water supplies, according to a quick survey conducted by the Alliance for Water Efficiency.
The projects which provide a sample of water efficiency projects across the state include retrofitting plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, upgrading water meters, and planting water-wise plants and other vegetation to decrease wasteful water use.American Rivers and the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) are calling for at least 20% of all drinking water infrastructure funding to be dedicated as grants for water efficiency capital projects to create jobs, boost the economy, and ensure adequate clean water supply for the future.
An economic analysis conducted by AWE estimates that total economic output per million dollars of investment in water efficiency programs is between $2.5 and $2.8 million. It estimates that a direct investment of $1 billion in water efficiency programs can boost U.S. employment by 15,000 to 22,000 jobs.
Water efficiency is far cheaper than building new dams and expanding reservoirs, up to 8500 times more cost-effective, at only $0.46 - $250 per 1000 gallons while new dam construction costs $4000 for the same amount of capacity.
"There is a hidden reservoir waiting to be tapped in California. Investing in these water efficiency projects will boost water supplies and create good jobs," said Betsy Otto, vice president of strategic partnerships at American Rivers.
"With California's severe water shortages adding to economic uncertainty across the state, the time for water efficiency investments is now."
"Water efficiency is the cheapest and smartest way to manage and stretch our existing water supplies for economic growth.
And nearly 20% of California's electricity is used to pump and treat water, so using water more efficiently also reduces greenhouse gases," said Mary Ann Dickinson, Executive Director at the Alliance for Water Efficiency.
The Alliance for Water Efficiency compiled a list of examples of water efficiency projects in 11 states, including 566 projects totaling more than $2.3 billion that are ready to go within six months.
Water efficiency means using water more wisely - by fixing leaks, replacing old appliances and fixtures, and taking other common sense steps in our homes, businesses and communities.
"Water efficiency isn't about telling people to shower just once a week, or to plant a cactus in their front yards," said Otto. "It's about improving our infrastructure to stop leaks, reduce the water we use for each task, protect healthy rivers, and create long-term benefits for our water supplies and communities."
Website: www.AmericanRivers.org

Uh, Oh, Prop 8 Gets Weirder. Is That Possible?

From Jim Sanders, McClatchy Newspapers, Sacramento: SACRAMENTO – “California’s attorney general and election watchdogs are fighting back against a federal lawsuit seeking to bar disclosure of late donors to the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and the Fair Political Practices Commission jointly filed arguments this week opposing the suit by the proposition 8 campaign.. . . . .

The suit seeks a court order exempting Proposition 8 committees from indentifying people who donated shortly before or after the Nov 4 election. Previous contributors already have been named.

California’s Political Reform Act, approved by voters in 1974, requires disclosures of the name, occupation and employer of anyone contributing $100 or more to campaigns.

The suit challenges the constitutionality of the disclosure requirements, claiming donors to Proposition 8 have been ravaged by 3-mails, phone calls and postcards – even death threats. . . . .

Brown, Bowen and the FPPC counter that disclosure requirements assist the sate in detecting efforts to hide the identities of large donors and illegal spending of political funds for personal use.

“Political democracy demands open debate, including prompt disclosure of the identities of campaign donors,” Brown said in a written statement.
Victims of harassment should sue or file criminal charges – not strip election records to “carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone,” he said. . . .

And then for the oddest wrinkle. One of the attorney’s for Prop 8, James Bopp Jr.” claimed that the state has no compelling reason to disclose donations as low as $100.

Really? Wasn’t that why the disclosure law was put into place I the first place, to foster “transparency” and prevent “stealth” money from being funneled in late in the game or slid in via $100 increments so the only way to find out who was actually sending the check, someone (like a nosy reporter) would have to spend the time tracking each $100? And in doing so, might uncover the interesting fact that (amazing coincidence!!) every single member (or employee) of a particular church (or business) sent in checks for $100 so the church (business) itself can claim it had NO CLUE it’s parishioners(employees) were supporting anything so the “church” (”business”) doesn’t have to report any involvement since it wasn’t involved, No Sir! No Sir! And that it might be of interest especially in a close election, that a whole lot of money can legally come in past the pre-election deadline, sufficient money for last minute media buys that can change an election with no way of accounting for that money until after the election, when it’s too late to let the voters know just who may be behind the donations, except for later to check into that by tracking those $100 donations? You mean, THAT kind of “transparency?”

Notes Ross Johnson, FPPC chairman, that the suit was “out to destroy campaign finance disclosure by a death-of-a-thousand cuts. I don’t intend to let that happen on my watch.”

Well, now it’s in the hands of the Feds. This “exemption” which the news story reports, “If successful, the suit would apply only to Yes on 8 committees. Besides barring disclosure of late donors, it would ban the public from viewing names previously released.” Hmm, ONLY applies to Prop 8. My, isn’t that . . . . special?

13 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

Water Facts: It is important to conserve water and energy: Technology when employed makes that possible.

http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1431106.html
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/qausage.html
(1) Q: What is most of the freshwater in the U.S. used for?
A: In 2000, about 346,000 million gallons per day of fresh water was withdrawn from our surface- and ground-water sources, such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and wells. Would you think that two uses of water, irrigation and thermoelectric-power production, would account for about 79 percent of water used in 2000? Here's the breakdown by water-use category:
Irrigation: 40 percent
Thermoelectric power: 39 percent
Public Supply: 13 percent
Industry: 5 percent
Livestock, aquaculture: less than 1 percent
Domestic (self-supplied): 1 percent
Mining: 1 percent

http://www.terrylove.com/crtoilet.htm

Watershed Mark said...

Desalination technology is improving and costs are falling, though, and Tampa Bay, Florida is currently desalinizing water at a cost of only $650 per acre foot. As both the demand for freshwater and technology increase, you can expect to see more desalination occurring, especially in areas, such as California and the Middle East.
Acre-feet 325,851 U.S. Gallons

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/drinkseawater.html

$0.001918 per gallon.

I wonder how much the pipe from Lake Naciamento brought to you by the county will cost?
Will that EIR contain a study of “desal” compared with a pipe?

When the lake runs dry will the pipe carry water from a desal plant in LO/BP?

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Do you have CA-specific water usage breakdowns or ... better yet, SLO county water usage breakdowns? I don't so much think that water used for irrigation in Montana could be "saved" in a way which would have any impact on Los Osos.

Desal, especially in sunlight-rich areas, can be a rather effective way of providing small amounts of water (i.e. enough for household use in cities but maybe not enough for the some AG uses).


On the whole Prop 8 thing ... I suspect that there is an issue at least in part because some people have been threatened for donating to the pro and anti 8 campaigns. Maybe there is a desire to cover up the real source of support, but the safety issue is the card they'll play.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark says:
"I wonder how much the pipe from Lake Naciamento brought to you by the county will cost?
Will that EIR contain a study of “desal” compared with a pipe?"

Oh, is that what you'll be trying to "sell" us next?

Watershed Mark said...

Not a bad idea, Lynette, should the drought continue.

Unknown said...

...will Lisa and Julie once again "throw down their shovels" if they don't like a desalinization plant anywhere in the general area of Los Osos...???

You do know one was proposed for the north end of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant... lots of domestic drinking water for SLO & LO... a pipe run through MontaƱa de Oro into Los Osos...

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE: At the rate technology is advancing who knows what a desal plant will looklike in 2 years.
Perhaps it may be shrunk into a shipping container and set up on the beach or fixed on or to a pier with a short connecting pipe that is cut into the current delivery system.

Did Apple foresee the IPhone when it started out?

CRACK!

Watershed Mark said...

-“Hydrocosm” of water-related businesses for the first time – projecting that a new approach of “water cultivation” characterized by efficiency, reuse, and source diversification will be required to meet rising needs.

“The world will avert crisis by cultivating water as a durable asset rather than throwing it away as a consumable – creating growth opportunities in everything from oxidizing new contaminants to rehabilitating creaking infrastructure.”

http://www.environmental-expert.com/resulteachpressrelease.aspx?cid=28518&codi=40146&loginemail=david@ford-peacock.com&logincode=26960&dm_i=458095861

Watershed Mark said...

Steve:

http://www.landwateruse.water.ca.gov/annualdata/urbanwateruse/urbanlevels.cfm

I'm surprised you can't find this stuff on your own...

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
Talk about cost of water...technolgy rides again: http://www.air2water.net/solutions.html

Watershed Mark said...

And again: http://www.miraclewaterfl.com/

Well you get the idea, I'm not sure that MIKE will though.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

I was suggesting that your nationwide numbers might be way off of the sorts of data one would get from around here.

Thanks for the link to confirm this.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.