We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

roccolore • 9 years ago

San Fran Democrats were the ones demanding rationing...for others.

Mr.P • 9 years ago

Classic case in point. Liberals want everyone to sacrifice and consume less UNLESS it going to affect them personally. Then heaven forbid they do with a little less to serve the greater good.

John • 9 years ago

A unsolvable problem.. Combine environmental regulations with uncontrolled population growth and you have a disaster in the making.. Conservation can not solve this problem.. It only provides talking points for a government up to its ears in dust..

Think big like nuclear powered desalination / power plants.. Power and water at the same time..

But then again California isnt ready to turn its back on its other talking points.. Like wind and solar..

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

No, just stop trying to grow rice in the desert. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Guest • 9 years ago
Itachee • 9 years ago

Other problem agencies are the US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA Fisheries.

Spreck Rosekrans • 9 years ago

a lot of tough question regarding water in California - but one is easy - San Francisco drowned Yosemite's spectacular Hetch Hetchy Valley - the only time any of America's national parks have been so desecrated - it is time for them to invest in storage outside Yosemite National Park

Itachee • 9 years ago

And to export their water from the Delta, Spreck.

DMG2FUN • 9 years ago

How is that bucket challenge doing in CA?

Jim • 9 years ago

Wasting water, what else.

Bryan E. Priest • 9 years ago

Here's an idea ...divert the Hetch Hetchy water to areas in need rather than give it to the Bay Area Libs, Queers and Trannies!!!

UNCLEELMO • 9 years ago

Where San Francisco's water comes from-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

KevSanders • 9 years ago

E V E R Y issue " progressives" claim concern over is fake.

Geeman: • 9 years ago

No, they really do believe in killing unborn children, right up until 1 minute before birth, or is it one minute after?

james • 9 years ago

Water shortage and yet those in libs in California, especially those who elected Pelosi want to bring in more and more illegals to California to suck up even more water. Keep all those illegals in California but drink only your water if you can find any.

Barry • 9 years ago

".... libs in California, especially those who elected Pelosi want to bring in more and more illegals to California....."

Anyone that voted for Bush or Obama, voted for 8 years of the illegal alien invasion.

davidingeorgia • 9 years ago

Well, of course. Rules - and water usage limits - are for the little people.

100Smart • 9 years ago

LIBS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. !!!!!!!!!!

Fed Up • 9 years ago

Duh!!

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

Does anybody actually fall for this?

The reason San Francisco has water available is because San Francisco already conserves far more than the rest of the state. San Francisco uses less water per capita for personal use than any other major city.

The cities in the Valley (Modesto, Fresno, Sacramento, etc) use THREE TIMES as much water per capita for personal use. Here's the source on that:

http://www.mercurynews.com/...

Hypocrites, you waste water massively, and then complain about San Francisco. Get the log out of your own eye.

Guest • 9 years ago
SFBay2 • 9 years ago

The cite above is only for PERSONAL water use. It doesn't even start to measure the use of water for growing rice in places that God intended to be desert. That's another whole issue.

San Francisco doesn't waste water on yards, and neither should the Central Valley residents. Most residential water goes to water lawns. It's time for Valley residents to recognize that they live in a DESERT and let their yards go brown. Until then, no, you may not have any of the water that we so carefully conserved.

Barry • 9 years ago

"Until then, no, you may not have any of the water that we so carefully conserved."

You are twisting the facts. From your own source:

"Places with hot weather tend to use the most water. Coastal cities, which enjoy cooler summers and lots of fog, consume relatively little."

So the biggest reason that San Francisco residents use less water than most places in California is because San Francisco is surrounded on three sides by water and it has lots of fog, not because you "so carefully conserved."

Jim • 9 years ago

There are few crops grown in San Francisco (weed excluded) and not too many homes with lawns, so yeah, less water used.

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

Yep - and it's time for every lawn in the Valley to go brown. Time to recognize that you live in a desert, folks.

Itachee • 9 years ago

It is Not a desert. May be you should look up and read what a Mediterranean climate is. Big difference. And while you are at it try to explain how it is that the rest of California is required to have water meters and SF gets a pass. Finally, recycling of treated waste water is occurring in much of California and vastly more is planned but SF just dumps in sewage in the ocean. Oh I know, SF's sewage doesn't stink nor kill fish and pollute the ocean!

Barron_Park • 9 years ago

Hey numbnut, every home and business in San Francisco has a very closely monitored water meter.

SACRAMENTO (you know, the big city in the Valley) doesn't have water meters.

http://fox40.com/2014/03/13...

Can you guys understand why liberals seem so snooty? It's because anytime we debate conservatives, we have to grind past their ignorance and misconceptions. We have to educate you before we can debate you.

jimhfry • 9 years ago

So, um....I may be ignorant and have many misconceptions, but at least I do have reading comprehension skills. That article you linked to does not state that Sacramento doesn't have water meters. But thanks for educating me on the meaning of false information, and, well, lies - something liberals seem to be very good at trying to pass as truth. Not that I'm being snooty or anything. In more high class yet blunt language that you might actually comprehend: "Try again, numbnut."

Barron_Park • 9 years ago

"In the City of Sacramento alone, there are 66,000 without meters."

What part of that do you not understand? Here's the link again:

http://fox40.com/2014/03/13...

Barry • 9 years ago

"We have to educate you (conservatives) before we can debate you."

Do you think conservatives couldn't go to the comment section of any leftie rag and find 100 dumb posts?

Barron_Park • 9 years ago

OK, fair point.

Itachee • 9 years ago

Typical lib half truth. This from just 3 weeks ago. What SF have is whole building metering, hardly individual metering.
Do you want to take a crack at lying about waste water recycling.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/s...

Steven Urke • 9 years ago

You are a true progressive. If someone has what you want it is permissible to take it for yourself. If you have what is needed you defend, hog and waste it on yourself.

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

What "waste" are you referring to? Heck, San Francisco's plumbing has a problem because NOT ENOUGH water is getting flushed through our low-flow toilets to keep the pipes clear.

Juan Yuan • 9 years ago

Dig deep enough and your SF bias starts making more sense...

Most of the overpriced and outdated apartments, condos, and homes in SF don't have in-home washers and dryers. No garbage disposals in the kitchen sinks. No outdoor spigot to wash off homeless guy feces from your porch or wash your car or water potted plants. Unreliable and underpowered toilets.

Non hipsters who put less emphasis on what their zip code is or how walkable their neighborhood is from the Apple store or Starbucks...just might put more emphasis on providing more for their families with less.

For the price of what you pay for even a modest 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom dwelling in SF- you can buy or rent a handful of 4 bedroom homes with a pool and three car garage in the valleys or rural areas.

80% of your braggadocios water usage is because you're literally forced to live that lifestyle, not because you are capable of hosing off the homeless guy feces from your front porch but choose not to for sake of "Gaia."

We can agree that having a lush green lawn in a desert climate is a bit absurd, but lets not pretend the water usage of one Silicon Valley billionaire's algae biofuel investment or Central Coast vineyard isn't also matching or outweighing a desert rice paddy somewhere else.

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

So you agree that San Franciscans use far less water, but appear to be saying that it's because they don't have any choice in the matter.

News flash, genius: if you can afford to pay $2 million for a one-room loft, you can afford washer/dryer combo to go with it.

It's true that San Franciscans could get a cheaper house in Valley. But most wouldn't live in the Valley if you offered them a house for free.

Juan Yuan • 9 years ago

Exhibit A of your elitism proving boundless and essentially voiding yourself of any credibility...

Not everyone in SF can afford a $2M home. Most can barely afford living in a $1M home built 70 years ago, with the "1st of the month" help of roommates.

You left your concept of reality at the fixie bike shop, apparently.

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

OK, the "fixie bike shop" comment was funny, have to admit.

Juan Yuan • 9 years ago

Exhibit B of Bay Area elites being water locusts elsewhere in CA.

Politico - Lifestyles of the Rich and Parched - August 24, 2014

"The top three users for Montecito in 2012/13 guzzled close to 30 million gallons alone."

Which includes Silicon Valley elites such as Eric Schmidt!

http://www.politico.com/mag...

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

You know, this is the reason I comment on these boards...every now and then, I learn something! That's an interesting article, thanks.

Of course, you know they probably got that trucked-in water from some grateful farmer who sold it to them at a high profit. And I have to say...ultimately, I don't have a problem with their actions. I think California water should be sold to the highest bidder.

Those green lawns aren't near as wasteful as flood-field rice farming in the Central Valley. Do you know how much Oprah and Schmidt pay in income and property taxes? The ultra-wealthy carry the state, let them have their green lawns.

Steven Urke • 9 years ago

A tad thin skinned and defensive there SF. Of course SF's favorite crop, pot, uses no water right? Try living on pot. Might be a bit difficult. Oh how fun it will be when food production is finished. Knowing the nasties in SF, you will withhold from the needy for yourselves to splurge.

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

Most of California pot crop is grown waaay up North. It'd be OK to grow in in San Francisco, but real estate is too expensive to justify massive hydroponics.

Matt Talbot • 9 years ago

When you get north of Santa Rosa on Hwy 101 it is crazy how much weed they grow. Many, many fertilizer and drip irrigation stores selling products that are not the type of product used by local grape growers. However lots of weed in the Sierra and coast ranges and every city in the state has grow stores supplying grow houses. However profits are dropping.

Jack Buckmeir • 9 years ago

BECAUSE LIBERALS AND HIPPIES DON'T BATHE VERY OFTEN

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

Nah, the bathhouses run strong. But they use only a fraction the water of what tight-minded conservatives use watering their big yards in the Valley.

JacksonPearson • 9 years ago

"Does anybody actually fall for this?"
Surely NOT for your crapola.

Well your facts may be true but what about your fellow man? Should you at least share your fortune of water rights. Soon there will be people holding signs
"Will Work For Water". Surely you are compassionate to share all you have.

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

You know, that's a compelling argument. But a few things:

(1) It's sort of like donating money to a person who already spends more money than you. The Central Valley cities use more water for personal use, let alone for agriculture. If this were really a do-or-die situation, I'd advocate cutting back more for our fellow Californians. But as long as there's a green lawn in Fresno, I don't see the wisdom of giving away our long-conserved water.

(2) If we give that water away, others will come to expect it all the time.

(3) We're probably going to vote in a $7.5 billion water project in November, that will mostly help the Valley, and mostly be paid for by the wealthy Coast. That's a pretty good showing of support, don't you think?

gazill • 9 years ago

But to a degree, one needs to consider the numbers within the numbers. 98 gallons per capita in SF? Keep in mind that a large number of SF residences live on top of each other in multiresident homes, most with minimal lawns. This can skew the numbers dramatically. Doesn't change the numbers, just how to interpret them somewhat.

SFBay2 • 9 years ago

Yeah, that's a fair point. But consider: the people in San Francisco have foregone the luxury of a lawn with their decision to live there. Their ultimate conservation came with their decision to not have a lawn.

To use an analogy, it's kind of like saying "Chuck has more money because he doesn't have an expensive car payment." Well, that's because Chuck decided to not buy an expensive car.