Utah Guns Forum banner

Who Do You Want Controlling Your Water? State or Fed?

18K views 68 replies 14 participants last post by  bagpiper 
#1 ·
Came across this extremely disturbing article by Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton:

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/communi ... 90a74.html

Pertinent quotes -

"The document's summary makes a subtle reference to restoration of forest health, but it makes specific reference to compliance with Executive Order 13514, signed by President Obama in 2009. That order was to reduce potable (drinking water) intensity (use) by 26 percent and industrial, landscaping and agricultural water intensity by 20 percent, by the year 2020."

"In effect, this new directive will give the U.S. Forest Service full authority to direct, control and monitor all of the waters that originate, pass through, "or are adjacent to" any land that is federally controlled. In Utah, more than 60 percent of the land is owned or controlled by the federal government, so adding the "adjacent to" qualifier could encompass nearly the entire state."

My thoughts -

This, I fear, could lead to a shooting war in the West. Cliven Bundy and his BLM showdown has nothing on this.
If you try to tell ranchers and farmers they have to cut their agricultural water use by 20%, you will bring back the very real prospect of shooting water wars - only this time it will not be neighbor vs neighbor, but ranchers vs feds. The states will have to decide where they stand. The agricultural impact upon Utah's economy in 2011 is 2.1% or 3.1% depending upon whether you include supplies grown on a farm for in-house use (hay, etc) or not. http://www.ag.utah.gov/documents/EconomicContributionOfAgriculture2011.pdf

Residential use is required to be reduced 26%. Now, as residential citizens in the city, I think we all agree we can do more to preserve water, and reduce use. First of all, I think water is too cheap. The price should be at least tripled. The sticker shock would force citizens to rethink usage. We are the 2nd driest state in the nation, yet we have the 2nd highest usage per capita.
Some immediate steps that could be taken would be to legislate water into home building. No municipality, board or county can issue new home building permits until the developer secures permanent water rights for each home for a period of not less than 70 years.
New homes must be plumbed to recapture grey water for first, toilet use, and then landscape or garden (agricultural) use.
Capture of rainwater from roofs should be legalized and encouraged.

Should water should be so expensive that one seriously reconsiders whether to have a lawn or not? Removing lawns will help tremendously in the required cut of 20% to industrial, landscaping and agricultural uses. should water should be so expensive people automatically turn the water off when they aren't using it - like brushing their teeth? That's much on par with electricity. Many of us were conditioned from childhood to 'Turn the light off when you leave a room!' Should water should be so expensive it is not dumped down the sink, but poured off into another container for reuse such as on houseplants, or the garden?
Why shouldn't this be the norm? It was a century ago.

And let us not forget we have a federal facility using , per media reports, up to 1.7 million gallons of water per day. Only a third of that can be recycled according to the following article. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25978926&nid=148
I still say whomever cuts off water supply to that facility is a patriot and a hero.

Last question:
With the federal government in control of water in Utah, who do you think wins when push comes to shove and both Salt Lake City citizens and the NSA center both need that 1.7 million gallons?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
This paper, by the Utah Farm Bureau, has really opened my eyes.

http://le.utah.gov/interim/2014/pdf/00003883.pdf

I used to think the Forest Service were the 'good guys'. It is abundantly clear that they are not. They are driven with a clear agenda, one of locking up public lands for the benefit of only those who are esteemed 'worthy' of the right to trample with only their boot.
While I have long rumbled at the attempts at the BLM to deprive the public of access by closing roads, and deleting grazing rights (See: Cliven Bundy) I can see now that the National Forest Service is in lock step with the BLM in attempting to destroy the western traditions of grazing rights. This has now been extended to an attempt to undermine or outright destroy established traditions of Western water rights law. To undo these established observances would devalue all water rights currently held, and create complete chaos.
Considering that experts do not consider water rights in the west to be completely resolved for another 100 or 200 years, to hit the reset button would cause complete economic failure in agricultural ventures that rely upon the current system. As a result, water rights would be reduced to 'Might makes right'. In other words, a shooting war.
 
#3 ·
Triple? Where or when has tripling the cost of anything solved any real world problem? Where does the money generated by the added cost end up? Who is most impacted by tripling the cost of a resource that everyone, without exclusion, needs? The poorest among us will be the most hardest hit.

Conservation results from education and not from tripling the cost of a vital resource.
 
#4 ·
dewittdj said:
Triple? Where or when has tripling the cost of anything solved any real world problem? Where does the money generated by the added cost end up? Who is most impacted by tripling the cost of a resource that everyone, without exclusion, needs? The poorest among us will be the most hardest hit.

Conservation results from education and not from tripling the cost of a vital resource.
+1
 
#5 ·
Conservation is not having a lawn in the middle of the desert. Conservation is driven by inconvenience. Cost is one of the largest inconveniences anyone can come up with. I suppose in some ways we are conserving water - I see incredible amounts of bottled water sold daily at Walmart. But that's not really conserving. The amount they pay per gallon is far in excess of the 2 cents per gallon I pay.

Using water should hurt to the point that showers are timed, lawns are debated, taps do not run while you are brushing your teeth, and letting the water run is unthinkable. Toilets are not flushed until #2, kids baths are shared, and so on.

The water will run out, eventually.The aquifers are being drained faster than they can be replenished. Lake Mead is dropping, as is Powell. It is hoped wet years will return to fill them, but what if it never does? Continuing to act as if rain and snow will always replenish the water levels is a fools bet.
 
#6 ·
Daeyel said:
Conservation is not having a lawn in the middle of the desert. Conservation is driven by inconvenience. Cost is one of the largest inconveniences anyone can come up with. I suppose in some ways we are conserving water - I see incredible amounts of bottled water sold daily at Walmart. But that's nit really conserving. The amount they pay per gallon is far in excess of the 2 cents per gallon I pay.

Using water should hurt to the point that showers are timed, lawns are debated, taps do not run while you are brushing ypou teeth, and letting the water run is unthinkable. Toilets are not flushed until #2, kids baths are shared, and so on.

The water will run out, eventually.The aquifers are being drained faster than they can be replenished. Lake Mead is dropping, as is Powell. It is hoped wet years will return to fill them, but what if it never does? Continuing to act as if rain and snow will always replenish the water levels is a fools bet.
And what of people that are already doing most of the things you suggest ? They just get to suck it up and see their water bill triple, effectively punishing them for someone elses transgression ? If you are going to try to "legislate" conservation (which I think is a bad idea btw), it would make more sense, rather than arbitrarily increasing cost, to instead put a limit on water use, based on occupancy. Figure out a reasonable amount of water use per month per person, and after a household reaches that amount, their water either stops, or THEN the cost goes up exponentially. People would more quickly learn to budget their water use if they knew they could be 3 weeks into the month and suddenly have no water left to flush a toilet because they used it all in the first week to fill a swimming pool, etc. Of course youd have some serious sanitation concerns in the beginning while people adjusted to limits (imagine a house where the toilets couldnt be flushed for over a week). Youd also have a problem in "communal" housing like apartments. In those places, water usage is not actually individually metered, even if you get a bill. Instead, the apartment complex gets a bill for the entire complex, and then the bill is divided up amongst all the occupied apartments. In situations like that, a relatively small number of "water abusers" could really cause problems for the rest of the complex.
 
#7 ·
Daeyel said:
Conservation is not having a lawn in the middle of the desert. Conservation is driven by inconvenience. Cost is one of the largest inconveniences anyone can come up with. I suppose in some ways we are conserving water - I see incredible amounts of bottled water sold daily at Walmart. But that's not really conserving. The amount they pay per gallon is far in excess of the 2 cents per gallon I pay.

Using water should hurt to the point that showers are timed, lawns are debated, taps do not run while you are brushing your teeth, and letting the water run is unthinkable. Toilets are not flushed until #2, kids baths are shared, and so on.

The water will run out, eventually.The aquifers are being drained faster than they can be replenished. Lake Mead is dropping, as is Powell. It is hoped wet years will return to fill them, but what if it never does? Continuing to act as if rain and snow will always replenish the water levels is a fools bet.
Anyone who has lived in Utah for more than 30 years has seen Lake Powell and Lake Mead go from overflowing, to their lowest levels since being filled, back to over-flowing, and back to very low levels. The West alternates between severe droughts and extreme flooding. Ditto on temperature swings. As former KSL meteorologists Mark Eubanks once observed, "There is no such thing as 'normal' weather in Utah. There is simply a mathematical average of widely varying extremes."

The benefits of dams and reservoirs are thus four fold: They store water for use in wet years; They reduce the damage from flooding in wet years; They provide habitat for wildlife; They provide recreational opportunities. I've seen some photos taken of Colorado River between what is now Glen Canyon and the Grand Canyon before the dam was built. I've seen photos in the same location taken recently. There is far more vegetation and thus more habitat for wildlife than when nature ran wild.

Those of us of religious inclinations recognize the divine commandment for man to tame and subdue the earth, to be good stewards, to be caretakers of this garden that He has created for us. Those not inclined toward religious beliefs might be prudent enough to recognize that as the highest evolved animal, man is part of the environment and our careful management thereof tends to bring about far better results for both ourselves and the other life forms on this planet than when we either withdraw from nature entirely, or go about acting as if our presence should have no effect.

Water is a vital resource. And part of what makes Utah a more pleasant place to live than in many other parts of the West is that we have a history of water projects going back precisely to 1847. Without the ability to have a green, soft lawn, who would want to live here, to raise children? My yard and the lawn in it are among the most useful, important aspects of my home. Sanitation, including flushing toilets and taking showers, washing clothing and dishes are among the highest, best uses of water, second only to keeping us alive long enough to care about sanitation.

Frankly, I resent extreme conservation measures based on paranoid fantasies fueled by demonstrably failed computer models and a neuvo-religion of earth-worship and hating humans. In an effort to save a little energy and water, my new dishwasher takes over twice as long to do a full load of dishes as my prior dishwasher did: 4 hours vs less than 2. I am much more inclined to run a partial load now that I used to be because the wait time is so long. My clothes washer takes three times as long as my old one did and doesn't do as good a job and his harder on the clothing to boot. I refuse to buy new toilets because when I flush, I expect the waste to go away. Suggesting I should be proficient at using a plunger is not my idea of progress.

I proudly have some 20,000 square feet (~1/2 acre) of lush, green, lawn around my home. It is a soft, lush, fescus, rye, and kentucky bluegrass mix. I've got another half acre of orchard and pasture/garden in addition to that. I'm pushing 2 dozen trees in my yard. And while they do require water, I think they also do a bit to pull some carbon from the air while producing some oxygen in return.

Of course, I also happen to own sufficient irrigation water rights to keep everything green and growing even in very hot, dry years. Rather than relying on city government to provide me irrigation water, or wasting purified, culinary water on my lawn and field, I purchased water rights in a private irrigation company. Turns out this water cannot be economically treated to culinary standards. So my ownership and use of it takes away nothing from the urban hordes who have too little foresight to pay for infrastructure for a dual water system and thus continue to pay for clean, fluoridated water to put on their lawns. And proper watering techniques (infrequent and deep, like the farmers do with their fields, along with overnight water and using heavy sprayers rather than light misting reduces evaporation) minimizes the amount of water required, while maximizing the health of my lawn and crowding out weeds with only minimal weed killers needed.

As my old, tea-totaling Mormon ancestors used to say, "Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting."

And defending my water rights is pretty high on the list of things for which I will reach for my gun.

I will vote to shut down new building permits long before I accept artificial price hikes on water or even continued impediment of water development that leads to needlessly higher water prices. Indeed, I'd be all for a grandfather clause. If someone's great-grand-daddy lived in Utah, he can live in Utah and partake of the "limited" water. If he didn't, and if someone really thinks water is all that scarce, he is free to move to wetter climes.

Nothing personal. But I do get very pissy when someone starts suggesting I should materially change my lifestyle just to allow a bunch of new comers to live near me.

I don't waste. But I do believe in properly using resources not only to sustain life, but to make life enjoyable and pleasant along the way.

There are sufficient resources. It is time for the federal government to stop preventing development of additional water storage efforts here in the West. And it is time to stop attacking lawns and other amenities that make this area livable. It is also time to stop parroting the "2nd driest State in the Union" line without some context. Yes. We are the 2nd driest State in the Union. But we have a lot of mountains that get snow that we can and do store for water use. Watering my lawn, having clean clothes, and flushing human waste far enough away to maintain public and personal health are all very good uses for water. In fact, I think they are far better uses than maintaining some "wetlands" where disease carrying mosquitos breed. (Yes, migratory birds also use them; and I don't think it is an either-or proposition. But just to be clear about my priorities: you can have my lawn when you pry it from cold, dead hands.)

And best UN projections are that peak world-wide population hits by 2050. Total USA population is projected to hit only about 360 Million persons, or about 16% higher than what we have now. Much of that is due to immigration rather than native births. If we haven't sufficient water, we have one more reason to secure our borders and strictly limit who and how many are admitted to our nation.

Charles
 
#8 ·
I'm not saying we shouldn't conserve water, obviously that would be stupid and environmentally unsound. However, being the 2nd driest state, we WILL use more water than the wetter states. No one bothers to water their lawns in Western Washington for example, they're more likely to be concerned with sump pumps to get the excess out of their basements. Yes, we could do a lot with Xeroscaping rather than having lawns in the desert, and without a doubt there are things that we could do to conserve that we do not currently do. Frankly agriculture alone could save a major amount of water simply by piping all irrigation water, as opposed to having open ditches with evaporation. Again, cost becomes a factor.

Honestly I'm at least as concerned about the amount of Utah water that feeds into Las Vegas and Los Angeles as I am about the amount wasted locally. I'd be willing to bet money there's more of "our" water wasted in other states than within our borders. But no, I can't cite studies, it's more a feeling than knowledge.

As for raising prices, Oklahoma had a tiered pricing system back when I was a kid, I remember my grandparents having extreme drought tolerant lawns and watering sparsely once a week during the hottest part of the summer. They got a certain amount of water at a flat rate. Anything over that amount went to second tier and got pricey. And they weren't about to reach third tier.

The biggest result of tiered pricing? People of modest income lived within their means...hmmm...what a concept. And the rich people didn't care and had lush green lawns and swimming pools. While I get tired of seeing more taxes piled on the poor, at least tiered pricing does give you the option of having a bad month but still being able to take showers and flush toilets. I would far rather see something of that nature enacted than a flat doubling or tripling of water prices.

Just my two cents.

Mel
 
#9 ·
gravedancer said:
And what of people that are already doing most of the things you suggest ? They just get to suck it up and see their water bill triple, effectively punishing them for someone elses transgression ? If you are going to try to "legislate" conservation (which I think is a bad idea btw), it would make more sense, rather than arbitrarily increasing cost, to instead put a limit on water use, based on occupancy.
When I first moved to Utah (1983), the widely quoted number was that Utahn's pay about 1/3 of their water bill, and the federal government pays the rest. That includes things like the Central Utah Project, etc. So claiming that making people pay the actual cost of their water is government intrusion seems to be exactly the opposite of the case here. We've become dependent on federal programs and used artificially cheap water in ways that may not be sustainable, and most likely wouldn't have happened if the cost wasn't hidden or artificially lowered.

I don't know if the 1/3 number still applies, but I suspect it does.
 
#10 ·
manithree said:
When I first moved to Utah (1983), the widely quoted number was that Utahn's pay about 1/3 of their water bill, and the federal government pays the rest. That includes things like the Central Utah Project, etc. So claiming that making people pay the actual cost of their water is government intrusion seems to be exactly the opposite of the case here. We've become dependent on federal programs and used artificially cheap water in ways that may not be sustainable, and most likely wouldn't have happened if the cost wasn't hidden or artificially lowered.

I don't know if the 1/3 number still applies, but I suspect it does.
Since Utahn's are only allowed to control about 50% of the land in our State while the feds (read residents of east coast cities) get to control the other 50%, I think some serious subsidies for all kinds of things are in order. :D

The mormon pioneers were engaged in water projects long before the feds were doing anything similar here in the West. I suspect their descendants would have continued that tradition had they been allowed to do so. But between the unlimited taxing authority of the federal government (thanks to the 16th amendment) and the feds exercising excessive controls over everything that might possibly affect the "environment", along with controlling all "navigable waterways" and the majority of land in our State, it isn't like we have much choice in the matter.

(Interestingly, early mormon water projects were very much communal in nature. Building in the mountain watersheds was strictly limited to protect the water that the community needed. And our water right laws are intended to encourage productive use of water rather than speculation on or hoarding of water. Sadly, what works fairly well in homogenous communities starts to look a lot like socialism or worse in large, diverse nations.)

Further, I am reminded of the oft-cited claim about how much federal subsidy from general taxes goes toward highways, as justification for subsidies to bike trails, mass transit, etc. It seems the money spent on roads out of the gas tax fund is insufficient to pay for highways. But interestingly, if one looks carefully, one finds that the total amount of gas tax collected is about equal to the total amount of money spent on freeways, highways, and other major commute routes. Why the seeming contradiction between these things? :dunno:

Easy enough. The gas tax monies have been routinely raided to pay for mass transit projects, bike paths, and other non-road projects.

So it turns out, that money is taken from the gas tax fund to pay for non-road projects. Then, the shortfall has to be made up with general tax revenues (or, probably more accurately, borrowing). This shortfall is then used as justification for subsidies to the very projects that caused the shortfall in the first place. Federal government book keeping at its finest.

Any talk of federal subsidies in almost any area needs to look very carefully at the total picture, and not just at one or two line items in the very creative federal book keeping system.

For some additional information on water in Utah:

A google search shows that it takes about 3 acre feet of water, per acre of alfalfa grown in Utah. That is just shy of 1 million gallons of water per year. Another search reveals that average water use per household in Utah is about 115,000 gallons per year. This includes both indoor and outdoor water use. (The same report shows a 14% drop in indoor residential water usage between 2001 and 2009.)

When an acre of farm land is converted to residential lots, the water used for farming is going to be sufficient for about 8 to 10 homes. Those are pretty small lots. Personally, I think anything smaller than 1/4 acre lots are barbaric for modest sized homes. Large homes need 1/3 to 1/2 acre.

Of course, as I know from my own irrigation water, water that is acceptable for irrigation use may not be practical to use for culinary systems.

Charles
 
#11 ·
Good points raised by all. Manithree, I had never heard of that statistic about Utahns only paying 1/3 the true cost of water.
I understand the vehement rejection of a doubling or tripling of water prices. No one wants to pay more than he needs to.
Water already is on a tier system, where heavy water users pay more.

Charles outlined a very important fact when he stated that water rights are very high on the list of things that will have him reaching for his gun. This is why I stated this National Forest Service water grab will start a shooting war. This does not affect only agricultural interests with the reduction of water use by 20%. It affects industrial and landscaping uses (your lawn and garden).
Most importantly, it affects every single person who turns a tap in the state. The executive order wants to mandate a reduction in residential water use by 26%. How will they do that? How strictly will they enforce it? Will they do as was mentioned by Charles and just turn the water off after you hit your limit, leaving you stuck for a week or 2?

That would certainly have me wondering if I need to get my gun. Education and tier systems notwithstanding, sometimes society has to say no more. For a commodity as precious as this, to water your lawn at 2 in the afternoon is just not workable at any cost.

Requiring all new home builds to secure their water rights, as well as plumb for capture of grey water* is a start**. Major home remodels could also require the same. How feasible is it to set up a grey water system in a municipality? I have seen pipes in Lehi that clearly warn they are grey water and not suitable for drinking. I have no idea how extensive this system is, but it is a great start.
Culinary water suitable for drinking should be expensive enough that one limits its use to the strictly necessary uses. The grey water a home produces may or may not be enough for the landscaping needs. For those residences where it is not enough, the availability of secondary sources of grey water from hospitals, laundromats and carwashes as well as other sources should be adequate. More importantly, they need to be made available.

Water is a serious issue that has been overlooked for so long that when we finally get brought to an abrupt halt to face them, some extremely expensive, extremely painful solutions will be all we have. New home prices will soar through the roof is building permits are conditional upon securing water rights. That in turn will push existing home values upwards, very quickly. Prices of water shares will be forced upwards. Property taxes will follow the home values, and home ownership in the West will become an ever elusive dream. Many would be forced out of their homes due to the increase in property taxes. Rents would rise due to property tax pressures.

The city I live in, Provo, recently announced a rate increase in water, as they have infrastructure costs related to storage tanks. As it currently stands, Provo City water tanks empty in the early after noon from morning demand, and then refill during the slower afternoon to be ready for the evening rush on water again. Provo City assures me in its newsletter that it has an abundance of water supplies through springs and wells. They wish to install more tanks to have more water available for residential use, and emergencies.
And I am left to wonder how well Provo could do at beginning the infrastructure to capture and carry grey water to homes equipped for it?

If the National Forest Service tells Provo in 2019 that it is cutting it's water supply by the required 26%, will Provo have enough water? Would it only then begin such a grey water project? Provo is nowhere near built out, despite being squeezed for room on all 4 sides. It still has vast tracts of agricultural acreage on the west side of town by Utah Lake. I do not know the municipal water status of other cities in Utah, other than the entirety of Utah Lake belongs to Salt Lake County municipalities.

Unfortunately, the water issues do not exist in a vacuum. Las Vegas and Los Angeles place increasing demands upon Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Nevada, desperate to feed ever growing, ever thirsty Las Vegas, is attempting to get its hands upon the Snake River aquifer, an underground water source that straddles the Utah, Idaho and Nevada borders. Utah and Idaho are furiously fighting off the attempt, with landowners above the aquifer facing extinction, as Vegas would quickly drain the aquifer below current well levels. Again, draining aquifers faster than they can replenish. For all the fighting Utah and Idaho are doing, right now, Nevada holds the trump card: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Could Reid push legislation through Congress to take the aquifer? I have not heard of any attempt to do so. I think even Democratic Senators would be loath to open that can of worms. But the possibility remains - we will see what balances of power shifts come in the November elections.

Charles is completely right in stating that water is very high on his 'reach for a gun' issues. Water has longs been a very real shooting matter in the West. There is a reason irrigation ditches, even today, have locks, padlocks, and chains on them. There is a reason irrigation co-operatives have watermasters. I worked with a woman, her husband worked for Strawberry Water Users District as an assistant watermaster. They lived in company housing, and he worked 8 hours 5 days a week, but was on call 24/7/365.
If he got a call or complaint at 2 am about a water issue, he was out the door in 5 minutes to resolve the dispute.
Our ancestors, devout Mormons though they may have been in the 1800's, could be, and were sneaky about stealing water. Legends abound of men brawling over water on Saturday night, and breaking sacramental wine together just a few hours later as though nothing had happened. Men died defending their water rights, and men died trying to steal water.

At the end of it all, I wonder when we will wake up to a realization that water is not infinite. We cannot build endless tracts of houses and green lawns. When some new reality hits, and we are forced to reduce population due to water shortages, how will we make those decisions?
Will we have to?

*Grey Water definition (per Wikipedia):
"Grey water or sullage is defined as wastewater generated from wash hand basins, showers and baths, which can be recycled on-site for uses such as WC flushing, landscape irrigation and constructed wetlands. Greywater often includes discharge from laundry, dishwashers and kitchen sinks. It differs from the discharge of WCs which is designated sewage or blackwater to indicate it contains human waste."

(Note that in Utah, kitchen sink discharge is considered black water, and must be discharged into the sewage pipe. I do not know why this is, perhaps someone can enlighten me?)
International Plumbing Code allows for greywater use indoors (flushing toilets would be the major use)
The Uniform Plumbing Code does not.
Utah follows the International Plumbing Code.

** I am moving ever closer to the start of building the microhomes I have mentioned on this site before. Current projections are sometime in 2015. These homes will be plumbed for the capture of grey water.
 
#12 ·
(Note that in Utah, kitchen sink discharge is considered black water, and must be discharged into the sewage pipe. I do not know why this is, perhaps someone can enlighten me?)
Probably something to do with Garbage disposals and food waste contaminates.

I would like to hear more about your Microhomes?
 
#13 ·
Daeyel said:
At the end of it all, I wonder when we will wake up to a realization that water is not infinite. We cannot build endless tracts of houses and green lawns. When some new reality hits, and we are forced to reduce population due to water shortages, how will we make those decisions?
Will we have to?

...

** I am moving ever closer to the start of building the microhomes I have mentioned on this site before. Current projections are sometime in 2015. These homes will be plumbed for the capture of grey water.
A few thoughts.

0-While water is not an infinite resource, it is, like wind and sunshine, a renewable resource. The sun shines, oceans evaporate, rain and snow fall. It is not like coal that we will run out of someday. We also know how to desalinate sea water and it isn't like there is any shortage of that on this planet. Energy costs and the environmental impact of using that energy limit desalination. But when I look back over the past 50 years of technology (not to mention 100 or 200 years), I'm not inclined to think that humans won't develop much cheaper, cleaner, abundant energy in next 50 years. Fusion would fundamentally alter the entire energy and thus fresh water equation. Furthermore, it isn't like we have to plan for infinite population growth. The highest UN estimates put peak US population about 16% higher than it is today. Like famine, drought seems to be more a concern when created or used by government as coercion than a real threat of nature, so long as we are prudent in our storage and use of water.

1-Using grey water can be trickier than many first assume. My sister is on a septic tank which means that all of their water (grey and sewage) leeches back into their ground. They are unable to use a traditional ion-exchange water softener because the salt in the waste water kills the pasture grass that grows over their leach field. I understand that using potassium chloride rather than the usual sodium chloride avoids the problem with dead plants, but also comes at higher cost.

2-I suppose the grey water from my shower could be used to flush toilets, but my sink contains way more food debris (from both the sink/disposer as well as the dishwasher) than I want to try running through any other plumbing fixtures. The japanese will sometimes have little sinks built into the top of the toilet tank. As the tank refills with fresh water, you wash your hands with the soapy water going into the tank and used for the next flush.

3-In Utah, average indoor water use is 182 gallons per day per household. Average outdoor water use is 134 gallons per day, with this usage concentrated in the summer with very little in the winter. Toilets use about 1/3rd of total indoor water. So out of 316 gallons of water a day used by an average household in Utah, you have 120 gallons a day of grey water that might be usable if you can use everything but the toilets, and if you don't use sodium chloride water softeners. Maybe that makes sense to use for outdoor irrigation.

4-But it isn't like grey water is always going to be devoid of human waste. Clothing (including cloth diapers) soiled with human waste get washed. I'm not sure what illnesses might survive a trip down the typical sink. Part of what has allowed for the huge advancements in public health in this nation is the public works that has pretty strictly kept drinking water separate from waste water. We have the technology right now to make sewer water entirely drinkable for both purity and taste. That it remains cheaper in most areas to develop new sources of fresh water than to treat sewage to culinary standards suggests the situation is not yet as dire as some seem to think.

5-In the nearly 20 years I've lived in the Salt Lake area, my water rates have gone up almost 400%. When I moved in, the bill was sent every other month. They moved to a monthly billing cycle with the monthly bill very close to what the previous bi-monthly bill had been. Then, the rates were raised and the tiered levels were lowered so that my monthly bill about doubled again.

The cost was a motivator for me. As I went looking for new homes, access to secondary water for irrigation was a requirement. I lucked out and found a home that had access to actual irrigation water rights, not just city run secondary water (which the city often oversells and then has to ration during dry years). Of course, it was also a factor for my neighbors who quit watering their lawns and were then surprised a couple of years later when big branches started falling off of their 40 year old trees.

I've lived in Tucson with their emphasis on xeriscaping. I lived in St. George and frequented Ivins and Kayenta back before a lack of landscaping had received a high sounding name. "Natural landscaping" including dust and sage brush, or even gravel or concrete to keep the dust down, are miserable. Houses are hotter and dirtier. Heavy rains are less likely to soak in resulting in more flash flooding. Children are less likely to play outdoors which in our age of video games and over-protective parents we are learning leads to high health care costs. From my observations, grass is also one of the easiest to maintain ground covers after concrete. Watering can be automated. And mowing is largely mechanized. Try keeping a flower bed or gravel patch clear of weeds, trash, and dog droppings: all manual labor.

6-I notice the it is government and businesses that are most likely to be guilty of watering during the heat of the day. That is when employees are on hand to do the watering. Most homeowners seem to have gotten the message to water when the water will soak in and do some good. A few of us have to water at whatever time our watering turn comes that week. But I flood irrigate everything I can and avoid the fine mist sprayers in those areas where I do have to use sprinklers.

7-Concerns about the government using water to control populations are not without precedence in how food has been used for centuries.

Charles
 
#15 ·
manithree said:
gravedancer said:
And what of people that are already doing most of the things you suggest ? They just get to suck it up and see their water bill triple, effectively punishing them for someone elses transgression ? If you are going to try to "legislate" conservation (which I think is a bad idea btw), it would make more sense, rather than arbitrarily increasing cost, to instead put a limit on water use, based on occupancy.
When I first moved to Utah (1983), the widely quoted number was that Utahn's pay about 1/3 of their water bill, and the federal government pays the rest. That includes things like the Central Utah Project, etc. So claiming that making people pay the actual cost of their water is government intrusion seems to be exactly the opposite of the case here. We've become dependent on federal programs and used artificially cheap water in ways that may not be sustainable, and most likely wouldn't have happened if the cost wasn't hidden or artificially lowered.

I don't know if the 1/3 number still applies, but I suspect it does.
Ok how about the feds give Utah the roughly 70% of our land mass that they currently control, and we do away with those subsidies ?
 
#16 ·
RustyShackleford said:
1.7 million Gallons of Utah Water a day to cool the gluttonous NSA's need to Spy and Store info on Americans...That could be Cut!
That sounds like a lot. It is a little over 5 acre feet. If that is the average used, 365 days a year, then we are talking about 1904 acre feet of water, or what is needed for about 634 acres of alfalfa. If that is peak daily usage during the summer, annual usage could be quite a bit lower. In any event, the data center itself looks to cover about 250 acres from a Wiki map of the area. So it is not using tremendously more water than would be needed were that land to be under cultivation. Put another way, at maximum it uses about the same amount of water as would be used by about 6,000 average homes. That is maybe 24,000 residents, or 8 tenths of 1 percent of our population.

Whether the purposes of the data center are sinister or benign or perhaps even essential to national security is, of course, open to debate.

But the water usage does not look problematic to me.

Charles
 
#17 ·
bagpiper said:
RustyShackleford said:
1.7 million Gallons of Utah Water a day to cool the gluttonous NSA's need to Spy and Store info on Americans...That could be Cut!
That sounds like a lot. It is a little over 5 acre feet. If that is the average used, 365 days a year, then we are talking about 1904 acre feet of water, or what is needed for about 634 acres of alfalfa. If that is peak daily usage during the summer, annual usage could be quite a bit lower. In any event, the data center itself looks to cover about 250 acres from a Wiki map of the area. So it is not using tremendously more water than would be needed were that land to be under cultivation. Put another way, at maximum it uses about the same amount of water as would be used by about 6,000 average homes. That is maybe 24,000 residents, or 8 tenths of 1 percent of our population.

Whether the purposes of the data center are sinister or benign or perhaps even essential to national security is, of course, open to debate.

But the water usage does not look problematic to me.

Charles
I would agree that the water usage by the NSA facility isn't that out of line. Until the point that the feds step in and mandate a reduction in water usage. I don't care if it's 5% or 25%, that needs to apply to their facilities if they're going to mandate my usage. That would include usage at all of the military bases, etc. In short, get your own house in order before you tell me how to run mine. Oh man, there I go with another radical concept.... two in one day, I don't know what's wrong with me.

Mel
 
#18 ·
D-FIN said:
(Note that in Utah, kitchen sink discharge is considered black water, and must be discharged into the sewage pipe. I do not know why this is, perhaps someone can enlighten me?)
Probably something to do with Garbage disposals and food waste contaminates.

I would like to hear more about your Microhomes?
I could talk about this all day!

These homes are ~320 square feet, so they have a max occupancy of 2. Perfect for singles, or 2 person households.
The construction affords that they are waterproof, fireproof, hurricane and tornado proof. Indeed, sealed up properly they can remain dry inside indefinitely. I am estimating a 6 month resistance to salt water. The wallboard inside is fire resistant (fireproof?) and bug and water proof. It also does not need mudding or painting, greatly reducing construction and end purchaser costs. Being small, it will be easily heated and cooled, requiring a minimum of energy.
Insulation will be the spray in type, as it affords the most complete coverage, and uses the least amount of space.
Additionally, a deck/patio space is built in, bringing potential indoor and outdoor living space to approximately 450 square feet.

Lighting will be LED to reduce energy use as much as possible. Believe it or not, there is space for laundry hookups!

Solar capability will be built into the unit, just 'plug and play'. Off grid capabilities to allow for rainwater capture are also available. Alternately, the roof can be converted to a garden or lawn area, which adds insulation value year round.
I would like to make it possible to access the unit online, with thermostat controls, and even electrical controls available. Certainly would be nice to have magnetic locks that can be remotely unlocked with a cell phone, internet or touchpad.
I have not fully looked into the cost of these possibilities, however.

There will be 2 floorplans, basic, and wheelchair accessible.

Cost should be about $30,000. About 2 years rent for a similar size space in NYC.

Right now I am accruing the equipment needed to build these units. Once this is done, I will go into construction mode.
 
#19 ·
quychang said:
I would agree that the water usage by the NSA facility isn't that out of line. Until the point that the feds step in and mandate a reduction in water usage. I don't care if it's 5% or 25%, that needs to apply to their facilities if they're going to mandate my usage. That would include usage at all of the military bases, etc. In short, get your own house in order before you tell me how to run mine. Oh man, there I go with another radical concept.... two in one day, I don't know what's wrong with me.
The only concerning thing with your post is what is considered radical these days. :D

Yes, the feds should get their own house in order in terms of energy use, water use, financial accountability, equality of pay, non-discrimination, etc, etc, etc, before presuming to tell either the States or citizens what to do in these cases. When we realize the number of laws imposed on the rest of us from which congress has specifically exempted themselves (and the rest of the federal government) from OSHA, from Sarbanes-Oxley, from the real teeth of Civil Right act, and so on.

The real problem is that congress (and the federal courts) presume to dictate so much to the States. I get it. Jim Crow was ugly and needed to be ended. But it isn't 1960. And not everything is equal to legally mandated racial segregation and discrimination, no matter how much some folks dislike a given public policy. Congress, Federal Courts, and federal executive agencies simply have no business telling Utah how to manage our water or power usage...at least up to the point that our usage doesn't have some material and damaging effect across State lines.

Anyone who has traveled knows that this is a huge, diverse nation, with several very distinct and not entirely compatible cultures. For 20 years I've said that after spending a few years living in New England, the War Between the States made a lot more sense to me. To summarize in overly simple terms, for New England Puritans, the fact that Southern land owners did not keep their fences in perfect repair was at least as morally offensive as the fact that they held slaves. Today's east (and left) coast cities have cultures and values largely incompatible with Bible Belt and Western standards of living.

It is worse than a fool's errand for anyone to think to impose a single culture upon a nation spanning the better part of a continent and with 300 million citizens. One can find much to love (and always at least a little to dislike) about any of the sub-cultures within our nation. And we would be well served to re-embrace the diversity afforded under federalism as architected in our federal constitution.

There is a pretty short list of agreed upon, national standards that need to be met. We've enumerated those in the federal constitution, and primarily in the Bill of Rights (and a couple of subsequent amendments). Most of these provide protections to those accused of crimes and facing criminal penalties from the s/State: jury trial, access to counsel, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Some protect specific conduct such as freedom to worship, to assemble, to publish. Others provide specific rights to specific groups: women's suffrage, voting for 18 year olds, citizenship and equal treatment for former slaves. With an occasional rare exception where limits must be defined, I think all States respect these rights. What remains without proper national respect is only the 2nd amendment rights to own and carry firearms for self defense. Enforce that across the all States with some minimum level of protection, and leave most everything else to the several States.

If Massachusetts wants rent control and socialized medicine, not really my concern. I don't much care how California handles water rationing. Nevada's laws on prostitution, gambling, and booze don't much hurt me. Nor do Colorado's laws on recreational pot usage or Oregon's consensual homicide laws (aka "assisted suicide"). All I expect in return is for Utah's citizens to be able to set our culture in these areas as we see fit. And not to drag us off topic with hot button issues, but I firmly believe that the questions of the definition of legally recognized marriage and even limits on abortion should also be left to the several States.

Charles
 
#22 ·
Daeyel said:
Car Knocker said:
Daeyel, modified 40' shipping container?
Yes.
I was actually researching shipping container structures a few weeks ago. I think they are pretty awesome options. Thought it would be cool if you could have some lake property somewhere to setup a bunch that could be buttoned up until you need them then for beach weekend with he fam or rent them out. But I really like them being mostly self sufficient or low energy.
 
#23 ·
I wouldn't mind putting a couple on the Gulf and renting them as honeymoon getaways.

Of course, I have numerous ideas on how they can be utilized.
 
#26 ·
Just one note, the pipes seen in Lehi are part of the secondary water irrigation system, not a grey-water system. Connecting them to the culinary system is not in the design.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top