There is a
drought in California and almost all Californians know it by now. We have to
expect more of such natural phenomena in coming years as global warning, which
has been repeatedly hollered since late 1970s, is still ignored by policy
makers as a scientific hoax. The problem with lack of attention to and
acknowledgement of human-caused tragedies is that, the same catastrophes are
bound to be repeated and even exasperated. The positive aspect of paying
attention to warnings and acknowledging the cause of a cataclysm is preventive
measures that the government could take, or at least it could ease the complexities.
Although generally speaking, governments have been in the pocket of the big
business who only considers present benefits and ignores future damages as a
result of their environmental destruction. For example, if governments (city,
state, federal) paid more attention to scientists’ forewarning of global warming, they would have thought of a method to increase the amount of water
without relying merely on annual rainfall, and/or would have increased water storage
in the years when there was excess water. In fact, some municipalities were
more thoughtful and they had adopted a water conservation policy as an ongoing
remedy in order to expand their water storage. Educating the public in water
conservation would be another tactic. However, as it always happens,
resolutions to solve a problem are mandated when the catastrophe has already occurred,
and as it is the recurring instance, it falls on the public to foot the bill.
Municipal
districts across the state have been sending notices to residents to reduce
their water consumption. Some have been asking for small reductions in water
use in order to be able to provide such commodity to all residents, and some
have been going overboard with it. City of Pleasanton has adopted Stage 3 of water
shortage planning and has demanded the residents to reduce their water use by
25%, or 10% reduction in indoor use and 40% reduction outdoor. Offenders are
told to receive exuberant fines. On a daily radio show of last week, the host interviewed
a water authority regarding California water conditions. The host suggested
that enforcing a water conservation policy would lead to the water company
losing an extensive amount as a result of a sudden drop in water usage. The
guest responded that fines paid by those who did not cut their usage by the
amount they had been demanded would compensate for the loss. This proves the
old saying that disasters profit capitalism, and drought is a good opportunity
to increase the bottom-line. When banks failed a few years back, Federal
government rescued them at the cost of the public. They were rescued to
continue business as usual and continue milking the public. With utility
companies we have no other choice but to abide by their demands, as they are monopolies
and there is no competition to turn to.
Pleasanton
residents are well aware of the quality of water they are supposed to do
without a quarter of. There is an annual report that reflects the quality of (or
lack of) water which anyone can check, titled; Pleasanton’s annualwater quality report. The page
before the last page of last year’s report contains a PDF table which lists
chemicals such as Arsenic, Barium, Chromium, Selenium, …, with some numbers
listed for each of these chemicals in several columns. Anyone who is not a
chemist and is able to translate these numbers to something that would make one
drink the thick and grey water coming out of every tab in Pleasanton, should be
a remarkable person with general knowledge. It is clear to everyone by looking
at the water coming out of the tab that when it is poured into a glass many
non-liquid components are visible. Most homes have some sorts of filtering
systems attached to the kitchen tab, or a complete purifying tank in the garage.
Still, drinking water has to be purchased from stores.
“California’s water budget is skewed heavily towards
agriculture. The conventional estimate is that 80 percent of the water used in
California flows into the state’s multi-billion dollar agricultural sector.” Says D.J. Waldie in a
February 10, 2014 article titled “Drought
by the Numbers: Where Does California Water Go?” According to this
article, water shortage is less prominent in Southern California due to a water
conservation plan that has been in effect by a rebate program (instead of
penalizing excess use). There are various reports with differing percentages of
water usage per each sector of the society. The above mentioned article claims
that 80% of the water in California is used by agricultural sector, while 14%
is used by residential and 6% by the government, commercial operations, and
industries. There is another set of ratios suggesting that 75% of total water
in California is used by agricultural sector and 8% by residential, and the
remaining 17% by other organizations mentioned above. Using the first set of
ratios, instead of demanding households to cut their per-capita water by 25%,
agricultural sectors could be asked to cut their usage by only 4.375%, and using
the second set of ratios, by only 2.67%. It is not clear whether the third
sector is demanded to cut their water usage or not. However, people who drove
in several boulevards in Pleasanton (such as Las Positas, Hacienda, and
Stoneridge) during the times that sprinklers were on, have certainly noticed
extra water all over the concrete. Those who drove during the mentioned times
and in rainy seasons have probably noticed the same sprinklers working while it
was raining. Ordering residence and charging them with penalties to suddenly
cut their water usage by a quarter is not for the sake of water conservation,
but to increase profit of the water company. If water conservation was in mind,
government agencies could start by rationing water for themselves first, i.e.
stopping sprinklers in rainy seasons, and continue that with those who use
water the most, namely agricultural and industrial and commercial
organizations.
