Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

They say they have already been using significantly less water than their state allotment, and they are still going to be under the new allotment by a large amount. Yet they are still going to charge more for water in order to encourage even less water use.

People already spent time and money to use less water, so much so, they say they are fine in a drought, but are getting punished anyway. These people need new neckties.

They say they have already been using significantly less water than their state allotment, and they are still going to be under the new allotment by a large amount. Yet they are still going to charge more for water in order to encourage even less water use. People already spent time and money to use less water, so much so, they say they are fine in a drought, but are getting punished anyway. These people need new neckties.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

But yet they still are building like there's no problem. Vegas is a blight on the desert.

[–] • 1 pt

And this is the real problem. Snowpack and rainfall actually haven't been that different over the last 20 years, even though they keep saying we're in a drought. The issue is more people. More and more people equals more and more water used equals the reservoirs dropping.

[–] • 0 pt

But without an ever growing population of working aged people how will the government get taxes it needs?

[–] • 2 pts

An old-timer like me remembers in the 70s San Francisco started a save water campaign with the slogan "If it's yellow. let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down". They also advocated putting a brick in your toilet tank to use less water per flush. The goal was to reduce water use by 10%. But water saving measures were so effective water use was reduced by over 25%. The the city complained there wasn't enough revenue due to the lower water consumption to cover the expense of the water department, so they raised the rates.

[–] • 1 pt

I remember all that. Lived through it.

Even funnier is in the late 2000s, downtown San Francisco smelled a lot like an open sewer. Turns out all the gov't mandates for low-flow toilets didn't push enough water through the sewer systems to flush everyone's poo. Then they had to hire big teams (at a massive expense) to go down in to the sewers and manually flush it all through with high-pressure hoses.

And guess what? That's what they're still doing today.

[–] • 1 pt

Yet they are still going to charge more for water in order to encourage even less water use.

That's how economics works. Scarcity -> higher prices -> reduced usage. I wish they did that here; instead they have stupid restrictions on using water, e.g. you can only water on certain days of the week.

[–] • 0 pt

There are .623 gallons of water per sqft 1" deep. A rooftop area of 2000 sqft can capture 1370 gallons per inch of rainfall. 10 inches of rainfall in Nevada per year nets 13000 gallons. Average home uses 130 gallons a day. That equates to 100 days of water from capturing rooftop water alone.

[–] • 0 pt

So I did that math a while back. I live in Marin county and had a small-ish house but it would still get about 14,000 gallons on the roof every year.

Here's the rub: That 14,000 gallons falls primarily in about 4 months. Where do you store it? Well, I thought an above-ground pool would do the job, and I was right about that. Problem is then the expense of buying and setting one up properly - emphasis on PROPERLY, and the cleaning of the water for future use.

Turns out that, at least here, it didn't make financial sense to go to all the trouble for that. Also, I think your "130 gallons a day" is a little low - at least for a family of 4. I think it's closer to 300 gallons. Again, that's for a family, so if you were figuring on one or two people you're pretty spot on.

All of this said, when I finally leave this suburban shithole (Marin County is the very bastion of hypocritical liberalism), I will absolutely dig a small lake and set up water capture and proper filtration / storage. These days it would be utterly stupid not to do so if you have the room.

[–] • 1 pt

You also have to calculate evaporation losses. Here in the hot southwest I lose about 600 gallons per week from my pool.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I think you would need a pond or somewhere to store it efficiently. They have tanks that can store that amount https://www.tankandbarrel.com/plastic-poly-vertical-water-storage-tanks-pm10000-bushman-vertical-water-storage-tank-10000-gallon-p-3221.html but they're pretty expensive. Although, I doubt you would need such a large system to buffer those 14000 gallons unless all the rain falls in a very short period of time.

The water is useful for irrigation. Dripline systems are pretty efficient I'm doing a 10x20 ft garden area and it seems to need about 50 gal/week. If I was to capture the water on my roof I could do 5x the areas on just the roof water alone.

Not really practical given the cost of water in this area, but it's neat to try and go closed-loop as much as possible.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

You store it in an underground cistern. Downspouts can run into an above ground filtering box of some sort, catching bigger debris. From there, a pipe runs it to your underground storage tank. From the cistern, you can run pipes to your home, pulling the water up by a jet pump. From there, it'll travel through your in-house filtering system.

This is more ideal for toilet/showering. They do have very expensive UV water filtering systems you can set up if you really did want to consume it.

An underground cistern/tank collecting rainwater, coupled with well water and water softener and you are good to go.

Not as easy as city water, but a little work or hiring someone and spending a few shekels can take care of your water needs.

[–] • 0 pt

A few shekels? Installing an underground cistern large enough to store a rainstorm's worth of water and plumbing it to your house can easily cost $100,000.

[–] • 0 pt

Arizona is losing 23% of its allocation while California will lose 0% ZERO %!

[–] • 0 pt

Playing the Commiefornia game, make shit scarce so you get a premium price for it.

[–] • 0 pt

All by design, a manufactured global food crisis. I'll bet those lakes are being drained, piped to California, and dumped straight into the ocean.

[–] • 0 pt

This is a situation that in order to rectify, would have needed to be planned for decades ago. There is simply too much demand on the Colorado supply.

Too much ag. Too much commercial consumption. Too many people.

Unless those are all adjusted, with a degree of immediacy, then the current rate of extraction will destroy the South Western States. It's basic causality. We spend all our time and money on migrants and welfare, we ignore critical infrastructure and rates of consumption because they're simply not important until they're a crisis which ensures that no matter the response, it will be too late. The Western States cannot support the demand we have uncritically imposed.

It's sad. The American Southwest was a fantastic region.

[–] • 0 pt

That's the longest way to write "beaners" that I've ever seen. Without beaners in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah there would be 18 million less people drawing water from the Colorado River.

[–] • 0 pt

Facts.

[–] • 0 pt

Still Yep... No matter how many you take away...

[–] • 0 pt

Things might be different in Nevada, but when I hear these public guidelines or restrictions on water use I wonder what percentage of total use comes directly from people (toilets, showers, etc.). I read that most of California’s water is used by industry. Apparently almonds and avocados need loads of water to produce.

[–] • 2 pts

Residential water use is less than 10% of California's water use.