A water fight in court

California has been offered a totally NEW fresh water Source that will yield 1,000,000 acre feet a year ! The piles of paper that will be created in a Water Battle in Court will not produce a single NEW drop of water for California. Development of the totally NEW Source has been guaranteed not to damage the water rights of anyone, anywhere or the environment.

The proper utilization of 1,000,000 acre feet of water a year could be utilized to not only supply an alternative fresh water Source for 25,000,000 people "represented" in the Court case, but could also restore the Salton Sea and the Colorado River Delta. Legal massage of the water could also keep Lake Mead reasonably FULL and the 1800 megawatts of electricity flowing to California.

What a novel way to solve a huge raging water battle in Court.....drown it in 1,000,000 acre feet of fresh WATER !

Ray Walker (Retired Water Rights Analyst) waterrdw@yahoo.com

All of the cities and suburbs in California use about 11% of all California water. Industry, which makes California the eighth largest economy in the world, uses about 9% of the water. Agriculture which produces only a minor part of California's GDP uses 80% of all the water. And they waste it egregiously!
Ag water costs about 5$ an af while desal water costs $1,500 ot $3,000 an af. Any Long Beach water plan that is not built on these facts is a waste of time and money.

James Taylor wrote:

All of the cities and suburbs in California use about 11% of all California water. Industry, which makes California the eighth largest economy in the world, uses about 9% of the water. Agriculture which produces only a minor part of California's GDP uses 80% of all the water. And they waste it egregiously!
Ag water costs about 5$ an af while desal water costs $1,500 ot $3,000 an af. Any Long Beach water plan that is not built on these facts is a waste of time and money.

Are you suggesting we stop eating food?

Long Beach has had the foresight to do something long term, and something positive to react to the very forseeable coming water shortages. Congratulations to them for living up to the expectations of the electorate. The other cities have chosen to ignore impending doom, and are now facing the consequences. The efforts of Long Beach have been widely publicized. Everyone has had a chance to participate, and been invited to do so.

Officials in other communities who have not begun the effort to conserve water are not serving their communities well. After all, water issues have been a big problem in California for hundreds of years, since it was a colony of Spain, much less a province of Mexico, or a territory, and then a State, of the United States. Nothing new with fighting over water here.

JBT wrote:

<quoted text>Are you suggesting we stop eating food?

No. I am suggesting that you look into the facts and see how agriculture is wasting water totally unnecessarily for your self.

Robert J G Jackson Sr wrote:

Long Beach has had the foresight to do something long term, and something positive to react to the very forseeable coming water shortages. Congratulations to them for living up to the expectations of the electorate. The other cities have chosen to ignore impending doom, and are now facing the consequences. The efforts of Long Beach have been widely publicized. Everyone has had a chance to participate, and been invited to do so.
Officials in other communities who have not begun the effort to conserve water are not serving their communities well. After all, water issues have been a big problem in California for hundreds of years, since it was a colony of Spain, much less a province of Mexico, or a territory, and then a State, of the United States. Nothing new with fighting over water here.

I am sorry Robert, but the math is simply against you. All of the cities and all of the suburbs in California use about 11% of all the water. If every household in every city in California put in cactus lawns, low flush toilets, and every other water saving device known to man, the total savings would be trivial, maybe 1% of the total water. However, in the giant agribusinesses just stopped growing alfalfa by flooding fields, we would save 20% on all the water. I know this is an extreme example, but it makes the point I hope. What bothers me is that NO ONE seems to even want to talk about the way agriculture wastes water. The comment ahead of yours is a good example of the trivial way the subject is dealt with currently.