Only 1 year of water left in California, NASA scientist suggests rationing

NASA’s top water scientist says California only has about one year’s worth of water left in storage, and its groundwater – often used as a backup for reservoirs and other reserves – is rapidly depleting. He suggests immediately rationing water.

California just had the driest January since record-keeping began in 1895, with groundwater and snowpack levels at all-time lows, NASA scientist Jay Familglietti wrote in a column for the Los Angeles Times. He said the state has been running out of water since before the current years-long drought and storage levels have been falling since at least 2002, according to NASA satellite data.

“California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain,” said Familglietti. “In short, we have no paddle to navigate this crisis.”



A team of NASA scientists, using the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites, discovered that the state’s Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins were 11 trillion gallons (41.6 trillion liters) below normal seasonal levels. The researchers say that water levels have steadily dropped since the launch of GRACE in 2002.

Californians use an average of 181 gallons of water each day and a total of around 2.5 trillion gallons a year, according to data from the USGS website.

Familglietti called for an immediate and dramatic rationing of water, including for domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial uses. A recent Field Poll shows that 94 percent of Californians surveyed believe the drought is serious, and one-third support mandatory rationing.

Other solutions to rationing are desalination plants. San Diego is building the largest ocean desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere. The $1 billion project will deliver 50 million gallons of drinking water a day and is scheduled to open in 2016, while 15 other plants are planned along the coastline from Los Angeles to the San Francisco Basin.

But there are a few drawbacks: the San Diego plant requires more electricity to produce than any other water source, and in order to get 50 million gallons of drinking water it has to process 100 million gallons of seawater, which once returned to the ocean as discharge water has double the saline level.

“This plant can’t come online fast enough,” Bob Yamada, water resources manager at the San Diego County Water Authority, told the Sacramento Bee. The Authority serves 3.1 million people and is buying all of the plant’s freshwater production.

“It’s drought-proof. That’s one of the most important attributes. It will be the most reliable water source we have,” he added.

Desalination has been adopted by other nations with fewer natural freshwater supplies – Israel, Australia and Saudi Arabia, for example.

Another remedy being considered by California municipalities is wastewater recycling, which involves treating city sewage to drinking water standards and using it to refill reservoirs.

http://rt.com/usa/240657-nasa-california-water-drought/


Quill - step out of the shower! LOL

well they should have been restricting usage it for years now Instead they have been fining people if they didn't waste it watering lawns.

Even Desalination in Australia NOT in USE huge investment and waste of time
JUST STOP WASTING IT
seriously that all there is too it just actually treat drinking water like the precious resource it is don't use it on lawns.
How much is drinking water is used in sewerage HEAPS institute grey water systems so your not pouring drinking water down the toilet

Actually, there was a shortage of water back in the early 1990's.  Lake Tahoe's water level fell drastically.  But then the rains returned, and then there was a shortage of water storage facilities.  Fields were flooding and rivers overflowing.  They were opening water gates and sending it down rivers and streams, and on to the ocean.  The cry then was, save the reservoirs.

El Niño.

http://abc7.com/news/ca-drought-homeowners-fined-for-brown-lawn/210648/
last year issuing fines FOR NOT WASTING WATER
Water lawns with drinking water IS wasting water

And even the fix is so half asses that local governments can still fine people for NOT WASTING water

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-homeowner-association-lawns-20140721-story.html

We get el nino too
California is not climatically different than South East Australia We just get El nino when you have El nina, we are the half of the pacific system.

veya_victaous wrote:http://abc7.com/news/ca-drought-homeowners-fined-for-brown-lawn/210648/
last year issuing fines FOR NOT WASTING WATER
Water lawns with drinking water IS wasting water

And even the fix is so half asses that local governments can still fine people for NOT WASTING water

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-homeowner-association-lawns-20140721-story.html

We get el nino too
California is not climatically different than South East Australia We just get El nino when you have El nina, we are the half of the pacific system.

Haha...El Niño is not a thanksgiving feast you pass around.  It is a climatological condition that impacts certain parts of the globe, and not others.  It happens primarily east of OZ, between NZ and South America, affecting weather on the west coast of the Americas.

veya wrote:"California is not climatically different than South East Australia..."

Yes, in fact it is changing dramatically and California may become coastal desert like Libya. Rain and water are not moving from the Pacific eastward, creating snows (water storage) along the western slope.

The intercontinental divide is right along the ridge of the Rockie Mountains, running thru Denver and down into New Mexico.  Most of the watershed is on the eastern slope, from snows coming out of Canada and the Northwest. This watershed flows through the Platt River, down the Missouri and into the Mississippi.


Basically, the western slope has only the Colorado River, and without rain on the western slope of the Rockies the Colorado is drying up.  The point is that El Niño is preventing moisture from moving in from the Pacific Ocean along California and Mexico, changing climates and drying the area up.

If you'r short of water, we can sell you some,we have quite a lot here most of the time.

So build a pipe line from the sea to death valley one of the hottest palaces on earth pump sea water in to a large low lying area of the valley ....let it evaporate

that moisture has to go some where and come down as rain


So build a pipe line from the gulf states always flood  and when they flood because of hurricanes pump the water excess overland to California  or any of  states in a drought

unfortunately even though the problem could easily be addressed it lacks the investment and the vision that the early Victorian builders  had to build the infrastructure we enjoy today and one could argue that it was the need for clean water in part responsible for that. However the unwillingness of some to accept global warming as a reality despite the ever increasing physical evidence and major weather events is a major stumbling block

Hope is not  a strategy
And hoping the scientists are wrong is foolhardy and irresponsible and any one who doubts it
is incredibly stupid and lacking in the basic understanding of science because not one of them can intelligently make a argument without posting some RW world wide scientific funding conspiracy   or pieces published by people not even in the field of climatology

korban dallas wrote:So build a pipe line from the sea to death valley one of the hottest palaces on earth pump sea water in to a large low lying area of the valley ....let it evaporate

that moisture has to go some where and come down as rain

Interesting idea.  That area was once a part of a huge inland sea.  Now all that is left is the Salton Sea, a high-salinated lake.

korban dallas wrote:So build a pipe line from the gulf states always flood  and when they flood because of hurricanes pump the water excess overland to California  or any of  states in a drought

I'm no geologist, but I don't think a pipeline would work across the Colorado Plateau.  That is the continental divide.  The blue arrows depict the watershed directions of the eastern and western slopes.


The divide is a part of the problem.  Gravity being what it is, the divide is a map of where water goes, east or west.  That's why we speak of slopes.  It is also a map of where water comes from.  On the eastern slope water comes down from Canada and the arctic, being contained by the Rockie Mountains, thence to be drained by the Platte River out of Colorado (the state) and the Missouri River, and on to the Mississippi River.  On the western slope, the water comes from Pacific Ocean precipitation...storms heading east, dropping their moisture in the form of snow pack, and being contained by the western slope, thence to be drained by the Colorado River and the rivers of the Sierra Nevada watershed.   The watershed of the western slope is what is drying up...not receiving it's share of water.

korban dallas wrote:unfortunately even though the problem could easily be addressed it lacks the investment and the vision that the early Victorian builders  had to build the infrastructure we enjoy today and one could argue that it was the need for clean water in part responsible for that. However the unwillingness of some to accept global warming as a reality despite the ever increasing physical evidence and major weather events is a major stumbling block

The enclosed area below is the area of watershed of the eastern slope of the continental divide.  Although not delineated, the area to the left on the map is the western slope watershed.  On that side of the mountains we are not getting sufficient water.


These are continents we are speaking of, and I don't think even Victorians could accomplish what is called for.

korban dallas wrote:Hope is not  a strategy
And hoping the scientists are wrong is foolhardy and irresponsible and any one who doubts it
is incredibly stupid and lacking in the basic understanding of science because not one of them can intelligently make a argument without posting some RW world wide scientific funding conspiracy   or pieces published by people not even in the field of climatology

I'm afraid the scientists are correct.  Global warming is causing the El Niños, and the only answer is to get off of our diet of fossil fuels.

Original Quill wrote:

Haha...El Niño is not a thanksgiving feast you pass around.  It is a climatological condition that impacts certain parts of the globe, and not others.  It happens primarily east of OZ, between NZ and South America, affecting weather on the west coast of the Americas.

yes it is
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/ENSO-what.shtml

These changes in the Pacific Ocean and its overlying atmosphere occur in a cycle known as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The atmosphere and ocean interact, reinforcing each other and creating a 'feedback loop' which amplifies small changes in the state of the ocean into an ENSO event. When it is clear that the ocean and atmosphere are fully coupled an ENSO event is considered established.

it is caused by the warm spot moving in the pacific we have been tracking the pattern of it's movement for decades now

Original Quill wrote:
Yes, in fact it is changing dramatically and California may become coastal desert like Libya.  Rain and water are not moving from the Pacific eastward, creating snows (water storage) along the western slope.

The intercontinental divide is right along the ridge of the Rockie Mountains, running thru Denver and down into New Mexico.  Most of the watershed is on the eastern slope, from snows coming out of Canada and the Northwest.  This watershed flows through the Platt River, down the Missouri and into the Mississippi.

Basically, the western slope has only the Colorado River, and without rain on the western slope of the Rockies the Colorado is drying up.  The point is that El Niño is preventing moisture from moving in from the Pacific Ocean along California and Mexico, changing climates and drying the area up.

YEP the same as south east Australia (except our is rains more than snow)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/17/australia-murray-river-water-shortage
Ours is the Murray river and great dividing range and Lake Eyre instead of the desert around Vegas
we have been dealing with the issue federally since 2009
geographically the same but flipped east to west river feed lands between mountain range and pacific with low precipitation

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:So build a pipe line from the sea to death valley one of the hottest palaces on earth pump sea water in to a large low lying area of the valley ....let it evaporate

that moisture has to go some where and come down as rain

Interesting idea.  That area was once a part of a huge inland sea.  Now all that is left is the Salton Sea, a high-salinated lake.

korban dallas wrote:So build a pipe line from the gulf states always flood  and when they flood because of hurricanes pump the water excess overland to California  or any of  states in a drought

I'm no geologist, but I don't think a pipeline would work across the Colorado Plateau.  That is the continental divide.  The blue arrows depict the watershed directions of the eastern and western slopes.

The divide is a part of the problem.  Gravity being what it is, the divide is a map of where water goes, east or west.  That's why we speak of slopes.  It is also a map of where water comes from.  On the eastern slope water comes down from Canada and the arctic, being contained by the Rockie Mountains, thence to be drained by the Platte River out of Colorado (the state) and the Missouri River, and on to the Mississippi River.  On the western slope, the water comes from Pacific Ocean precipitation...storms heading east, dropping their moisture in the form of snow pack, and being contained by the western slope, thence to be drained by the Colorado River and the rivers of the Sierra Nevada watershed.   The watershed of the western slope is what is drying up...not receiving it's share of water.

korban dallas wrote:unfortunately even though the problem could easily be addressed it lacks the investment and the vision that the early Victorian builders  had to build the infrastructure we enjoy today and one could argue that it was the need for clean water in part responsible for that. However the unwillingness of some to accept global warming as a reality despite the ever increasing physical evidence and major weather events is a major stumbling block

The enclosed area below is the area of watershed of the eastern slope of the continental divide.  Although not delineated, the area to the left on the map is the western slope watershed.  On that side of the mountains we are not getting sufficient water.

These are continents we are speaking of, and I don't think even Victorians could accomplish what is called for.

korban dallas wrote:Hope is not  a strategy
And hoping the scientists are wrong is foolhardy and irresponsible and any one who doubts it
is incredibly stupid and lacking in the basic understanding of science because not one of them can intelligently make a argument without posting some RW world wide scientific funding conspiracy   or pieces published by people not even in the field of climatology

I'm afraid the scientists are correct.  Global warming is causing the El Niños, and the only answer is to get off of our diet of fossil fuels.

Great post Q
The E/W divide should not be a issue as i am talking about pumping (multiple stations)
gravity will have varying effects depending on the incline ,and lets face it if they can pump oil across the continental united states from Canada to the gulf  water should not be any more difficult and a lot safer

And i disagree  the "Victorians" built a railway across America and various other wonders of engineering and Americans put a man on the moon  And when you consider the Babylonians in the 8th century built extensive and sophisticated canal systems. In the 7th century a wide canal crossed a 280m long bridge to bring water to Nineveh and water was brought through a 537m tunnel to supply Jerusalem


you underestimate your capability's all that is required is the will and the money

korban dallas wrote:Great post Q
The E/W divide should not be a issue as i am talking about pumping (multiple stations)
gravity will have varying effects depending on the incline ,and lets face it if they can pump oil across the continental united states from Canada to the gulf water should not be any more difficult and a lot safer

And i disagree the "Victorians" built a railway across America and various other wonders of engineering and Americans put a man on the moon And when you consider the Babylonians in the 8th century built extensive and sophisticated canal systems. In the 7th century a wide canal crossed a 280m long bridge to bring water to Nineveh and water was brought through a 537m tunnel to supply Jerusalem


you underestimate your capability's all that is required is the will and the money

Thanks korben, it was fun pulling together those maps.

Pumping any liquid across the continental divide would require more energy than feasible...at least by today's technology. Maybe in the future... Incidentally, they don't pump oil across the continental divide. The Keystone Pipeline Project moves oil solely within the eastern slope of the Rockies.

I always admire the spirit of inventors and builders of the 18th-century, and I think we've got just as many going what with the computer and electronics industry today. Unfortunately the movers and shakers are not turning their attention to the big projects, like dams, railroads and pipelines.

This is one of the big problems with politics going on today. With a geopolitical economy, the wealth moves around the globe, following cheap resources and labor. This leaves very little behind for investment into infrastructure. I believe the last great project that the US saw was the construction of the interstate highway system. built during the Eisenhower administration (1950's). Today we've got bridges falling down, dams leaking and railroad tracks decaying...and no one is repairing it.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:Great post Q
The E/W divide should not be a issue as i am talking about pumping (multiple stations)
gravity will have varying effects depending on the incline ,and lets face it if they can pump oil across the continental united states from Canada to the gulf  water should not be any more difficult and a lot safer

And i disagree  the "Victorians" built a railway across America and various other wonders of engineering and Americans put a man on the moon  And when you consider the Babylonians in the 8th century built extensive and sophisticated canal systems. In the 7th century a wide canal crossed a 280m long bridge to bring water to Nineveh and water was brought through a 537m tunnel to supply Jerusalem


you underestimate your capability's all that is required is the will and the money

Thanks korben, it was fun pulling together those maps.

Pumping any liquid across the continental divide would require more energy than feasible...at least by today's technology.  Maybe in the future...   Incidentally, they don't pump oil across the continental divide.  The Keystone Pipeline Project moves oil solely within the eastern slope of the Rockies.

I always admire the spirit of inventors and builders of the 18th-century, and I think we've got just as many going what with the computer and electronics industry today.  Unfortunately the movers and shakers are not turning their attention to the big projects, like dams, railroads and pipelines.

This is one of the big problems with politics going on today.  With a geopolitical economy, the wealth moves around the globe, following cheap resources and labor.  This leaves very little behind for investment into infrastructure.  I believe the last great project that the US saw was the construction of the interstate highway system. built during the Eisenhower administration (1950's).  Today we've got bridges falling down, dams leaking and railroad tracks decaying...and no one is repairing it.

I disagree especially when you consider TransCanada is pushing a project that will move transport more crude from the Canadian oil sands to world markets.The planned transcontinental pipeline would be nearly 3,000 miles long, would cost billions of dollars to build, and would carry heavy crude oil from Western Canada to world markets.http://fortune.com/2015/01/30/the-bitter-battle-over-a-giant-canadian-oil-pipeline-no-not-keystone-an-even-bigger-one/

I haven't seen the argument for a TransCanada oil pipeline.

If you look at the following relief map of existing Canadian pipelines, the problem immediately becomes apparent:


At the point of the continental divide, all along the British Columbia and Alberta provincial line, you see pipelines terminating.  What that says is that liquid cannot traverse the spine of the Rocky Mountains.

True, one proposed line (depicted as blue in color), the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, does go from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, across the divide and down to the coast. But I think you will find that it is for CNG, not actually fluids:

Coastal GasLink wrote:Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited, proposes to develop a natural gas pipeline from northeast B.C. to the west coast of B.C. to serve export markets. - See more at: http://www.coastalgaslink.com/#sthash.86MLVZVu.dpuf

Notice we have subtly shifted the topic of conversation from water to oil.  With oil, the economics change drastically.  Crude oil in 2015 has dropped, but it is still at $43/barrel.  Water is measured in terms of acre-foot, and is presently at $700 in Los Angeles, a hot market for the very reason we are discussing.

I think you can see by this that movement of water across the continental divide is going to be much more demanding, in terms of volume, and much less remunerative than oil.  

National Geographic wrote:When Colorado River withdrawals were first allocated among the river basin’s seven states, in 1922, the river held 17.5 million acre-feet (5.7 trillion gallons) of water. However, new science has shown that 1922 was part of an especially wet period. The river now averages about 14.7 million acre-feet per year and is allocated among seven states and Mexico.

That's what traversing the continental divide would have to replace, should the Colorado River dry up. Who knows, though, the economics of this is in severe flux, as this discussion manifests.

I think it is wonderful that Canada is attempting this--always admire the Canadians--but it's going to require advancements in technology as well as basic alterations in markets.

korban dallas wrote:So build a pipe line from the sea to death valley one of the hottest palaces on earth pump sea water in to a large low lying area of the valley ....let it evaporate

that moisture has to go some where and come down as rain


So build a pipe line from the gulf states always flood  and when they flood because of hurricanes pump the water excess overland to California  or any of  states in a drought

unfortunately even though the problem could easily be addressed it lacks the investment and the vision that the early Victorian builders  had to build the infrastructure we enjoy today and one could argue that it was the need for clean water in part responsible for that. However the unwillingness of some to accept global warming as a reality despite the ever increasing physical evidence and major weather events is a major stumbling block

Hope is not  a strategy
And hoping the scientists are wrong is foolhardy and irresponsible and any one who doubts it
is incredibly stupid and lacking in the basic understanding of science because not one of them can intelligently make a argument without posting some RW world wide scientific funding conspiracy   or pieces published by people not even in the field of climatology

I was just thinking about that sort of person ... this will be a good test of a particular right-wing theory that God won't let stuff like this happen:

“We are not going to run out of anything,” (Republican Minnesota state rep Mike) Beard recently said, arguing to resume coal mining in Minnesota. “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable.” http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/54285/exxon-says-oil-is-running-out-gop-lawmaker-says-god-wont-allow-it/

WHICHEVER WAY you look at it, the state of California and the US government have BOTH brought this situation down on their own heads !!!

* They allowed excessive deforestation early on, and then followed up by not adequately preventing industrial, agricultural and urban pollution of waterways and water supplies;

* They took a laissez faire attitude towards "urban sprawl" and where towns and cities were built in the past (and exacerbated that situation with the misbegotten "Soldier Settler" schemes post-WWI - sadly also used by Oz and some African countries at the same time - that contributed largely towards the "Dust Bowl" erosion problems so common in the 1920s and '30s..);

* THE US GUVM'NT (along with many other current and recent national governments across the globe..) has been bending over backwards over the past decade to assist "dirty" industries to deny and avoid responsibility in contributing to 'Climate Change';

* They allowed too many, and too rapid an expansion in, mines and gas operations on the West Coast ~ both of whom are heavy users of fresh water;

* AND, like many of our countries, were too slow in responding to the 'accumulating' and combined effects and results of this pollution, urban sprawl, climate change, and sharp changes in water usage;

* AND the California state gov't and local authorities left it far too late to impose water usage controls and restrictions ~ allowing too many individuals and industries to continue along with their traditionally wasteful habits !
"What goes around, comes around.."    

Lone Wolf wrote:

WHICHEVER WAY you look at it, the state of California and the US government have BOTH brought this situation down on their own heads !!!

* They allowed excessive deforestation early on, and then followed up by not adequately preventing industrial, agricultural and urban pollution of waterways and water supplies;

* They took a laissez faire attitude towards "urban sprawl" and where towns and cities were built in the past (and exacerbated that situation with the misbegotten "Soldier Settler" schemes post-WWI - sadly also used by Oz and some African countries at the same time - that contributed largely towards the "Dust Bowl" erosion problems so common in the 1920s and '30s..);

* THE US GUVM'NT (along with many other current and recent national governments across the globe..) has been bending over backwards over the past decade to assist "dirty" industries to deny and avoid responsibility in contributing to 'Climate Change';

* They allowed too many, and too rapid an expansion in, mines and gas operations on the West Coast ~ both of whom are heavy users of fresh water;

* AND, like many of our countries, were too slow in responding to the 'accumulating' and combined effects and results of this pollution, urban sprawl, climate change, and sharp changes in water usage;

* AND the California state gov't and local authorities left it far too late to impose water usage controls and restrictions ~ allowing too many individuals and industries to continue along with their traditionally wasteful habits !
"What goes around, comes around.."    

That's very true. On the other hand, who was thinking about such things in the 1860's.

Original Quill wrote:I haven't seen the argument for a TransCanada oil pipeline.

If you look at the following relief map of existing Canadian pipelines, the problem immediately becomes apparent:

At the point of the continental divide, all along the British Columbia and Alberta provincial line, you see pipelines terminating.  What that says is that liquid cannot traverse the spine of the Rocky Mountains.

True, one proposed line (depicted as blue in color), the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, does go from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, across the divide and down to the coast. But I think you will find that it is for CNG, not actually fluids:

Coastal GasLink wrote:Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of TransCanada PipeLines Limited, proposes to develop a natural gas pipeline from northeast B.C. to the west coast of B.C. to serve export markets. - See more at: http://www.coastalgaslink.com/#sthash.86MLVZVu.dpuf

Notice we have subtly shifted the topic of conversation from water to oil.  With oil, the economics change drastically.  Crude oil in 2015 has dropped, but it is still at $43/barrel.  Water is measured in terms of acre-foot, and is presently at $700 in Los Angeles, a hot market for the very reason we are discussing.

I think you can see by this that movement of water across the continental divide is going to be much more demanding, in terms of volume, and much less remunerative than oil.  

National Geographic wrote:When Colorado River withdrawals were first allocated among the river basin’s seven states, in 1922, the river held 17.5 million acre-feet (5.7 trillion gallons) of water. However, new science has shown that 1922 was part of an especially wet period. The river now averages about 14.7 million acre-feet per year and is allocated among seven states and Mexico.

That's what traversing the continental divide would have to replace, should the Colorado River dry up.  Who knows, though, the economics of this is in severe flux, as this discussion manifests.

I think it is wonderful that Canada is attempting this--always admire the Canadians--but it's going to require advancements in technology as well as basic alterations in markets.

remember oil is harder to pump than water because of its relative viscosity and you dead right they are lots of considerations we cant even begin to for see

but look at it this way
i think a gallon of water costs in the states around $1.21 i think
and a gallon of petrol $1.33

and you cant drink petrol and you don`t die because of the lack of it
some drastic measures are going to be needed and some out of the box thinking and massive investment to solve this

Water is around $700 per acre-foot. Yesterday, gasoline was $3.35 per gallon at the pump. You are certainly right that water is a more necessary commodity to the human body, but such things get mixed up in the grand pool of economic demands. For example, the rich will get what they need, and want, over the poor. And the money will be spent on oil, since it drives the manufacturing machine...let the babes go thirsty.

I agree with you that the human spirit will overcome. But like Queen Elizabeth said, forget the fooking bowling, it's time to get going!

Original Quill wrote:Water is around $700 per acre-foot.  Yesterday, gasoline was $3.35 per gallon at the pump.  You are certainly right that water is a more necessary commodity to the human body, but such things get mixed up in the grand pool of economic demands.  For example, the rich will get what they need, and want, over the poor.  And the money will be spent on oil, since it drives the manufacturing machine...let the babes go thirsty.

I agree with you that the human spirit will overcome.  But like Queen Elizabeth said, forget the fooking bowling, it's time to get going!

thats funny....i was going to put "boom boom" but wasn`t sure you would understand the comment ....:-)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/some-california-cities-are-using-insane-amounts-of-water-her#.tfZ0GQ6yXz

Just north of San Diego, there’s a stretch of land that begins at the coast and winds its way through a set of dry hills covered in scrub oak and white boulders.

The area — which includes a handful of San Diego satellite communities — is generally affluent, mostly includes single family homes, and it uses a lot of water.

Like, really a lot.

According to data released this week by the the State Water Resources Control Board, homes in the Santa Fe Irrigation District, as this area is called, used an average of 584.3 gallons of water per day last September.

To put that into perspective, a typical 10 minute shower uses between 20 and 40 gallons of water. A modern toilet uses less than two gallons.

As California’s drought worsens and cities — but not farms — are forced to cut water use, communities like those in the Santa Fe Irrigation District are coming under increased scrutiny. The new data, for example, is part of a proposal to demand 35% reductions from the state’s biggest water users — cuts that would be even steeper than those Gov. Jerry Brown initially ordered last week.

Golf course communities border the desert in Cathedral City, Calif.

Riverside County.  In fairness, your photo juxtaposes a golf course with a river bed, which commonly has virtually no plant life.  Well, anyway, Governor Brown has begun to crack down, calling for a 25% reduction in water usage across the board.

The problem is not necessarily human consumption.  The problem is agriculture.  Open sprinkling is the biggest waste....



A simple drip system would be far more economical.  But farms are huge conglomerates nowadays, and they don't want to invest the money.