Quantcast

But will there be enough water for One Paseo?

Development opponents point out "historic drought of Biblical proportions."

One Paseo conceptual illustration
  • One Paseo conceptual illustration

Three community groups today (April 8) filed a writ of mandate in Superior Court to overturn the city council's March approval of the massive One Paseo development project and the council's certification of the environmental impact report. It is to be a 1.4-million-square-foot mix of condos, retail outlets, and offices located in Carmel Valley.

The groups filing the writ are the Alliance for Responsible Development, the East Bluff Community Association, and Mitigate One Paseo. The writ complains that the environmental impact report was flawed in many respects. Among other things, improper assumptions were made to reduce the severity of impacts on surrounding communities, charge the groups.

The writ hits hard on a hot topic: water. "The water supply assessment that is contained in the EIR was inadequate and it was not revised, despite numerous specific comments that it needed to be modified to more specifically identify the anticipated sources of an adequate water supply and any environmental impacts from obtaining these supplies," says the writ.

"Our state is facing an historic drought of Biblical proportions. It is clear that the necessary water infrastructure does not exist to cope with fantasies of unlimited growth," says William Bibb, president of the Alliance for Responsible Development.

The writ also says the EIR failed to properly address such topics as air quality, greenhouse gases, and community character.

Share / Tools

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • AddThis
  • Email

More from SDReader

Comments

It's time to call a moratorium on huge water-guzzling development projects like One Paseo. Back in the 1970's drought, Santa Barbara did it successfully. Recently Santa Barbara has required greater water rationing on all its residents than we have experienced in San Diego. City Council's shocking approval of One Paseo should be overruled and the matter put to a vote of the people.

Monaghan,

You are absolutely right. A temporary moratorium on building has been upheld by courts as not being a "taking of property without due process."

Our water and greenhouse gas emissions problems are both long-term. Therefore, urban planning and transportation systems planning are permanent steps.

The OPR has issued proposed CEQA Guidelines. One Paseo is not "grandfather in"- Kilroy wants to triple the entitlement! The City Council "exercised it's discretion" without any factual basis whatsoever (except campaign contributions? ).

One Paseo is a dinosaur. It represents one last hurrah for the internal combustion, suburban sprawl concept. It is 109% automobile-dependent.

If we all had non-polluting little miracle automobiles that did not cost money or pollute, we could eliminate about 36% of the greenhouse emissions causing the drought. But the drought is likely to be permanent in our lifetimes. Making special exemptions to provide more housing without water infrastructure based on automobiles and commuting is a very bad precedent.

The new CEQA Guidelines will make suburban mixed'use developments of this magnitude impossible without convenient access to an established network of public transportation. Water infrastructure was proposed in 1981. Those who want to save taxes will strangle development by skimping on necessary infrastructure to support that development. Too late now to mitigate the thirty-year drought by building water infrastructure. We can still meet our greenhouse gas emission standards, but not by building super- dense developments without public transportation.

Diogenes: Yes, the lack of public transportation is stunning. Nothing "smart" about that. Best, Don Bauder

Santa Barbara is reportedly bringing their previously-built desalinization plant back online, as they are running low on water even with cutbacks in usage.

dwbat: Do you know why it has been offline? I haven't read about this. Best, Don Bauder

It was completed in 1991, but then not used (except for testing) because of sudden huge rainfall. It has sat unused ever since, but now the city is going to spend $millions to modernize and reactivate it. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-santa-barbara-desal-20150303-story.html

I read one of the funniest things I've seen in a while when I read the LAT article. Of course, the environmental extremists are up in arms saying, of course, that there are other alternatives. One of them suggested that capturing storm water should be tried first. Now don't get me wrong. I've been a member of the Surfrider Foundation and a couple of others for a long time. I've been surfing for almost 40 yr. I understand the need to protect the environment and the ocean in particular. And I know it's been 30+ yrs since I graduated from college. But don't you actually need rain storms to have storm water to capture?

danfogel: I suppose the environmentalists are saying that much rainfall is lost as a result of such phenomena as evaporation. If the rainfall were captured, less would be lost in such ways, theoretically. After all, there IS rainfall even in this drought. The Bay Area had a little bit yesterday. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder Right. Being a native of Arizona, I am keenly aware of the phenomenon.The process thru which rainfall returns to the atmosphere is called evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration is moisture that returns to the atmosphere thru either green water, which is the water flow that is the productive portion of this consumptive use which drives plant growth, or thru white water, which is is non-productive evaporation from the land surface. Both of these occur after the rainfall has ceased. But that's not what I am referring to. Nor was I referring to rainwater collection systems. I specifically referred to storm water, as in storm water runoff. That would be the excess water that the ground is unable to absorb, whether it be for natural or man made reason and is not captured and ends up running into storm drains, etc. And yes, it seems like a waste to see all of that water end up in the ocean. But the absurdity of the guys comment is this: Where's that water going to go instead, and how's it going to get there. Think about that for a moment. The most contemporary example I can use is the Los Angeles river. The maximum flow of the LA river is 129k cu ft/s. If my math is correct, that would be almost 1 million gallons per second. That's 3.6 billion gallons per hour. So again how are we going to move that much water, where is it going to go to be held, but more importantly, how much more land will we have to tear up to get it there and hold it. Oh yeah, and how is going to be paid for. Up here, they are talking about $5 BILLION just to extend a freeway, the 710, a mere FIVE MILES. I can't even begin to imagine how much it would cost to build such a system to capture flood waters for retention. It's kinda like everyone who thinks we should be able just to lay some pipes and bring the extra water from back east out west. Sure. Fine. Do a little research on exactly how it could be done, how long it would take and how big a check someones going to have to write, and who that someone is. Then we can talk...about how dumb an idea it is.

danfogel: Your analysis certainly reveals why California and other states have to plan to spend bundles and bundles on fighting the drought. If the money is spent and the drought ends naturally, the critics will jump all over those who authorized the expenditures. But there is no alternative to spending the money. Best, Don Bauder

dwbat: That is helpful. Best, Don Bauder

The good news is that Santa Barbara has a plant already built and should ready to award a construction contract as early as this month. The bad news is since desalination technology has changed considerably over the past two decades and because they sold off the reverse osmosis filters to Saudi Arabia It's going to cost $53 million, including interest, to restart the plant and it will be at least fall of 2016 before a water supply from the plant. Of course, the water rates will be raised about 26% to pay for the loan over ten years and then there are the inevitable rate increases for the $2.5 million to $5 million per year in operating costs, depending on whether they decide to keep the plant running at full production or put it in standby ready-state mode. This will get them about 3125 AFY of water, which is about 2.7 million gallons per day.

danfogel: In some respects desal is like rooftop solar. It is the answer, but technological improvements are essential, and prices must come down. Best, Don Bauder

don bauder, I've seen this comment from you many times and thus far resisted. but this time I feel compelled to reply. That said, I know that on this position you are completely obdurate, so I am not going to go back and forth trying to prove my point. I will state MY opinion this one and the move along because there's nothing else to say. Rooftop solar is NOT the answer. There is no single answer, no silver bullet. The answer is a combination of sources. All of the world's foremost experts agree on that. One only need to look at Germany. Germany's renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. Germany has recognized that it will take a combination of solar p.v. AND wind power, geothermal, hydroelectric and biomass fuels to accomplish their goals of bringing renewable national electricity to 80%, a 60 % renewable national energy system by 2050, not to mention reducing the total energy consumption levels in 2008 by 50% and reducing total electricity consumption from 2008 levels by 20% also by 2050. Again not one single tool, but rather a tool belt full of resources to use. THAT is the way to go.

danfogel: Sorry. I have never meant to say that rooftop solar is the only answer. I agree that wind power, geothermal, and other techniques are important. I have written on those techniques and California's plans for them. Rooftop solar is the best answer -- certainly in climates such as San Diego enjoys -- but is being fought by the utilities, which fear their profits will be threatened. (They will be.) Best, Don

monaghan: The vote was shocking and was overwhelming -- 7-2. Best, Don Bauder

Kilroy's lobbyists apparently did their job well.

I agree, Developer Greed is ruining the quality of life for everyone that currently lives in San Diego, since shoe horning even more people will do nothing but make everything in San Diego more like LA (aka Hell-A) as we are required to conserve so that ever more can move here.

San Diego should be doing the opposite and raise home values so that we become more like Carmel or Marin instead of yet another Orange County...

Founder: San Diego home values are already among the highest in the nation. San Diego home affordability is one of the worst. Prices keep going up. It's too late to become another Marin. Best, Don Bauder

And SD is way too huge to be another Carmel.

It is time for all neighborhoods in San Diego to stick together when the big developers come to town. Unless you want San Diego to look like Los Angeles, the time to get together is now.

Our environment in San Diego is our greatest asset. Smart Growth involves transit-oriented development, that is, building a long public transportation corridors, or in the urban core. The economic and environmental benefits of this type of urban and transportation are planning are proven. California is looking at a thirty year drought, even centuries long. We need water infrastructure before any further development. Changing zoning and community plans to "spot zone" for a particular developer who wants three times it's entitlement under current zoning and community plans is a very bad precedent.

For California to meet its greenhouse emissions standards, we must reduce vehicle miles traveled. That means using transit-oriented development principles in urban planning. Climate change caused the drought by diverting the jet streams far to the north. Without water, San Diego is not prepared for more people moving here. Decades ago it was urged that money be spent on water infrastructure. Now we have emergency rationing of water.

We also face emergencies according to the Pentagon studies that show the present trend towards population growth into urban centers will bring violence and disorder because there will not be enough water or jobs. Look at Detroit and Baltimore. Tens of thousands cannot afford to keep their water on.

California dreamin' is over. I do not care that SANDAG predicted that two million more people were expected to move to San Diego - so we"need" more housing. That is a circular argument refuted by recent water shortages and rapid climate change caused by increasing urban sprawl into suburbs without public transportation infrastructure.

I hope that everyone in San Diego realizes the gravity of the water shortages and the environmental disaster we are facing. Insurance companies will no longer insure.coastal properties. That is putting their risk management where the statistics are in underwriting. Politicians fall into two groups: idiots and sold-outs. They run on campaign contributions, not logic. There are a few exceptions.

Diogenes: Hasn't San Diego gotten more like Los Angeles already? Agree completely: The greatest need for San Diego and California is water infrastructure. Best, Don Bauder

San Diego already looks like LA. Back in the 70's when Pete Wilson was trying to put the brakes on sprawl and unproductive growth, he was excoriated as "anti-growth." Eventually the pro-growthers won out, and the floodgates opened all around No County. Houses went up everywhere, and were sold as fast as they were ready to occupy. There had to be a reason for that, and it was job growth. Sadly not all of or even most of the job growth was well-paying or long-lasting.

Visduh: Yes, and as soon as Wilson eyed higher office, he capitulated to the developers because he wanted their bucks. Best, Don Bauder

Diogenes - You have hit the nail on the head, Our most pressing problem is Elected Leadership not Water.

If we had better Elected Leadership then we would restrict growth until we acquired additional water (more Ocean desalinization) which would freeze current usage and prevent any future water shortages while at the same time NOT RAISING THE PRICE OF WATER.

Founder: San Diego desperately needs better leadership. But if enlightened leadership actually erected expensive water infrastructure, and severely clamped down on water consumption, how many elections would that leadership survive? Best, Don Bauder

Their landscaping plan sure doesn't look like xeriscaping. What are they THINKING? Where are the drought-tolerant flowers, plants and trees? Why are there any lawns planned?

None

by dwbat

dwbat: It looks to me like they are not thinking. Best, Don Bauder

The model here for most of these developments is landscaping that makes the area resemble Connecticut. Sort of a generic US picture of genteel good life. All that greenery isn't xeriscape. Our front yard is now done in drought tolerant plantings, and they look nothing like that depiction. Ours grow big and strong with no watering at all. If we have a problem with all that stuff, it is in keeping in trimmed, shaped, and generally under control.

How could the developers NOT know we're in a severe drought? Are they living in a cave? They are either clueless or just downright irresponsible.

dwbat: Cluelessness and irresponsibility are factors. But the BIG reason developers keep building into a coming catastrophe is greed. Also, accounting rules and bankruptcy law help the developers dodge much economic pain when the disaster comes. Best, Don Bauder

Visduh: Of course, as you know, architectural renderings used to hype a development often do not resemble reality. Best, Don Bauder

William Bibb: Amen. The economy depends on the environment. Best, Don Bauder

Don,

The day is dawning where people will finally realize that costs cannot be externalized while profits are indefinitely privatized. Pollution cannot be continually dumped into the atmosphere, oceans, injection wells or landfills. Pollution is a "cost." Yet, that never appears on a profit and loss statement.

This business model has allowed a false sense of "prosperity." We as a species will pay a very heavy price. A friend of mine wrote a book called "The next Species." Based on opinions by Yale University professors and others, the best case scenario for our species is about three hundred years. That is if we do not have a nuclear war.

The current business models do not even consider environmental pollution or exhaustion of resources. Calling this growth or progress is nonsense.

Look at Torrey Pines State Reserve. Here is a park that preserved a sliver of nature. Look at Yosemite or Big Sur. Developers would pave over the paradise for money. If we base prosperity on building, soon habitats for animals will vanish. Population and energy usage leave a proportional environmental footprint. Planners never even consider these factors.

In 100 years, the earth will not support the human population. We are looking at a precipitous catastrophe. Business as usual is killing us.

We must raise people's consciousness about the natural and probable consequences of our non-sustainable practices.

Diogenes: Your arguments are sound. Environmentalism took root in the 1970s, but then when greed swept the world, beginning in the 1980s, environmentalism went to the back of the bus. Best, Don Bauder

I wonder if by the time One Paseo is built if they will include a senior center and a nursing home as the developers will be old enough to need them.

AlexClarke: The company doing One Paseo is Kilroy Realty, based in L.A. Will those developers want to come to San Diego to live out their final years? The cost of living may be too high in San Diego. Best, Don Bauder

will the developers get any of the money back they spread around to get the favorable vote if the project does not go as planed ?

They wish! But that's the cost of doing business. And if they're smart (doubtful), Kilroy will put it in a contract that final landscaping will be xeriscaping ONLY, and other water-saving measures will be guaranteed.

dwbat: That's one trouble with environmental lawsuits. The developer just goes back and changes the plans. Best, Don Bauder

Murphyjunk: Since that money no doubt passed under the table, I don't think we can trace it. Best, Don Bauder

or the recipient will owe favoritism on future decisions

Murphyjunk: Point well taken. Best, Don Bauder

Alfalfa requires 15% of all water in California. 2,500 to 8,000 gallons of water go into a single meat patty in the typical hamburger.

Livestock accounts for 14.5% of global total of greenhouse gas emissions. This is more than transportation. By far the worst offenders of greenhouse gases and water consumption are cows and cattle.

Where does all this gas come from in dairy cows and beef cattle? Digestive systems (enteric fermentation) , fertilizers, and manure management. Cattle requires the cultivation of soy and corn , both of which require fertilizers.

Methane from livestock alone produces about 35% of the total anthropogenic methane emissions on the planet.

Methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are given off by livestock production.

Cows and cattle require huge amounts of land and large amounts of water.

Eggs and chicken meat do not require such large amounts of water to produce.

Cows and cattle remove habitat from wildlife and require deforestation.

Transportation systems give off greenhouse gases, but less than livestock.

If you want to conserve water, do not eat beef or use dairy products. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, do not eat beef or use dairy products.

Cattle producers require extermination of predators such as bears, bobcats, wolves, and coyotes. Many cattle are grazed on public lands.

Annual cost of cleaning up China's air according to the RAND corporation is 160 billion dollars annually; cost of not cleaning up China's air exceeds 500 billion annually.

Ted Cruz cheery-picked data (used only satellite data and ignored ground-level data, and picked an especially hot year as a baseline).

The best thing you can do for both water conservation, your health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to limit dairy and beef consumption.

The emerging economies all are switching to beef and dairy consumption.

Jerry Brown would not tell you this because it would threaten corporate profits.

I like burgers. So, although I usually watch what I eat, I am not giving up my burgers.

Ponzi: But you don't have to worry. Jerry Brown won't send his burger goon squad out to get you, because he is not playing up the subject. Best, Don Bauder

Diogenes: The figures for cattle being major contributors to greenhouse gases have been trumpeted for a long time. But I don't know if meat and dairy consumption has dropped since the word got out. Interesting, The figures would have to be adjusted for population growth, inflation, etc. Best, Don Bauder

We need to prioritize what agriculture produces in the state, rank food production from essential to non-essential and price the water used accordingly. Sod farms come to mind as being totally non-essential particularly since we don't have the water available to keep them green. Growing grass with cheap water when we are telling residents to let the lawn go brown makes no sense at all. Much as I like almonds, pistachios etc I can live without them or be willing to pay more since the price of water should rise for those who continue to grow them. Reasonable changes in agriculture water use can help us get through this drought but the changes will need to be long term and not forgotten when the next rainfall happens.

Dennis: Yes, but the politicians setting such priorities will look at one thing: money. Example: a very rich California couple own oodles of valuable land devoted to almonds. I assume this couple gives generously to politicians. That will be the variable -- not the value of the almond crop -- that goes into such a decision. Best, Don Bauder

The lawn-busting has begun! I've already seen two property owners on my street in North Park dig up their lawns and do xeriscape! This is going to be a humongous change in CA. What a great time to be in the nursery, gardening and landscaping biz!

dwbat: Landscapers will make money in the changeover. But nurseries make money growing plants meant to be transplanted and watered regularly. Best, Don Bauder

Kill two birds with one stone - cover front lawns with solar panels.

Ponzi: Good idea. Of course, taking out grass and putting in rocks is similar in some ways to putting in solar panels. The rocks generate much heat -- so much that the house may be uncomfortable. But you can't capture that heat the rocks generate and use it for your air conditioner. Best, Don Bauder

Meanwhile the City is watering the sidewalks at Clay Park in Rolando.

The worst water-wasters I've seen have been public parks. They put in underground sprinklers on timers, and then just never look at them again. Recently I've seen gross over-watering in SD city parks that appears to have been going on for years or decades. The lawns can be swamps at times, even in this drought. Watering sidewalks? Heck, I've seen them watering the middle of major streets, watering driveways, and even watering weedy ravines. Just more of the great management you'll get from the slobberin' city of SD.

Something I'm curious about is how much of the city landscaping in San Diego is irrigated using recycled water. Last September in San Clemente an expansion of the city’s recycled water plant went online that more than doubles the amount of recycled water produced, about 5 million gpd and will be used primarily to replace the use of potable water in irrigating landscaping, both public and private and for cooling some buildings. The City of Irvine has long been using recycled water. The Irvine Ranch Water District started to build a reclaimed water system the 60's. Way back then Irvine hadn't even been incorporated and it was almost all agriculture, but they decided it would be cheaper to build a sewage treatment plant and use the water on the agricultural fields than to pipe the sewage to a neighboring sanitation district. The Irvine Co. wanted to protect itself from reliance on imported water and then obviously when Irvine incorporated and grew to what it is today, they had a huge advantage. Now the builders are required to use it to water all common-area landscaping and community parks and the developers have build all the necessary piping inside their projects. I think the last figure I read a couple of years ago was that 80 percent of all business and community landscaping is irrigated with recycled water and 23 percent of all water used is recycled. Just curious if anyone knows how San Diego stacks up.

danfogel: I have seen San Diego publications boasting about how much recycled water is used -- say, on golf courses. I would think the actual numbers might be available. Best, Don Bauder

Visduh: The potential dangers of this drought have been known for several years. One would think the word would have gone out to the various divisions of city government. Apparently not. Best, Don Bauder

Dennis: It will take a long time for the word to get around. Best, Don Bauder

Failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions will aggravate droughts in the Great Plains and Western United States in terms of both length and severity. Few want to say the droughts are caused by climate change.

California has not seen these drought conditions since pre-Columbian times. Think in terms of a thousand years.

As we cut back on water usage, thinks will get dustier as we revert back toward desertification. Snow pack is about 10% of normal. Sun Valley in Idaho is going broke - no snow. My nephew was let go from the ski school after 15 years.

SANDAG was of the opinion that San Diego will increase its population by two million. This figure needs to be revised downwards in my opinion. If cash crops will be hit hard, where is the money to be made in California with water rationing. If you cannot have a lawn and live in danger of wild fires, people might think twice before moving here.

Developments should be put on hold. A moratorium on building in the state until water infrastructure is in place would not be a bad thing.

Having a drought-tolerant garden doesn't mean it'll get dustier at your property. Dust rises where there is NO vegetation. And why would anyone pass on moving here if they can't have a lawn? That makes no sense to me. In my "hood" the existing lawns only attract dogs to do their business. They serve no other purpose. I don't know anyone who plays croquet on the lawn.

dwbat: You mean you can't play croquet on a rock lawn? Oh dear. Best, Don Bauder

You can, but you have to use rubber balls, and not go bare-footed!

dwbat: That's a sticky wicket. Best, Don Bauder

Diogenes: There is absolutely no doubt about it: SANDAG and San Diego economists will have to cut back their predictions of the 2050 population. This is a figure that the developers use to justify further building. The developers will apply pressure to keep that figure from being revised. Best, Don Bauder

Diogenes: In Florida and Wisconsin, bureaucrats in key environmental divisions have been told not to mention climate change. Horrible. Best, Don Bauder

In Florida the large number of retirees talk more about climax change!

dwbat: The retired men also discuss drip irrigation. Best, Don Bauder

dwbat; Clogged-up arteries, too. Best, Don Bauder

I'm with you Diogenes. 25.9% of U.S. Land (2002 - USDA report) is grassland/pasture/range cattle land; 587 million acres. Cropland is/was 19.5%, 442 million acres. Haven't looked up how much is exported to the highest bidder. 635 million acres is Federal land and some can be used for livestock grazing. 152 million acres of Federal forest and grassland is grazing. State and local miscellaneous land grazes 40 million acres. The total land area of the U.S. Is about 2.3 billion acres: forest 28.8% (651 million acres), special use/parks/wildlife areas 13.1% (297 million acres, misc uses 10.1% (228 million acres). Urban Land (2.6%) 60 million acres. And are you guys nuts? Wiki- "A nut is a fruit composed of a hard shell and a seed, which is generally edible. In botany, there is an additional requirement that the shell not open to release the seed." wholefoodsmarket.com "All [manner of] nuts promote healthy arteries and cholesterol levels when we consume them in moderation. Eating a small handful of nuts about five times a week is perfect." A retired 100 year old heart doctor (KPBS) was interviewed for his vitality, longevity and health at his age and he said he studies nutrition. He said that with his low cholesterol level, it is Impossible to have a Heart Attack. My mom planted an almond tree in our yard, mid-city. It had nuts but they weren't picked, we moved out, nobody fed and watered it.

shirleyberan: Really -- 2.6% of land urban? Could be true. Look at San Diego and compare the urban area with the back country. Best, Don Bauder

I consume nuts (and seeds) regularly, and have for years. I watch for sales at CVS, when they are sometimes half-price! Skip the peanuts (which are not really nuts).

At some point we may run into a "Malthusian Era" during which there are fundamental limits to the growth of the economy and population.

We are consuming resources at a rate which is likely unsustainable.

Either we figure out how to reduce our consumption, use resources much more efficiently, stabilize population size and economy size, or start colonizing other planets - or eventually there will be severe shortages of resources and battles over limited resources.

But hey, that's all at least 50-100 years off so it won't affect anybody's quarterly profits so it's OK - right?

ImJustABill: I agree we are consuming resources at an unsustainable rate, but it's too late to rescue Malthus's reputation. He has been wrong for too long. Best, Don Bauder

Malthus might have been wrong about food production limiting population growth but his basic premise in more general terms - that the earth cannot sustain a population above a certain number - may ultimately be proven true.

Climate change, usage of nonrenewable resources, and destruction of ecosystem may ultimately turn out to be the limiting factors in the growth of human population, not food production.

ImJustABill,

Upper limits of agriculture depend on water, petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, tractor farming, soils depletion, loss of farmable land, use of genetic manipulation and many factors. There will not likely be another "green revolution," according to the originator of that concept.

Meanwhile, the population will increase and consumption patterns will increase. Drinking water will become harder to.come by. Factory farming leads to epidemics because of viruses while antibiotic-resistant bacteria are breed.

The human population could level off and reverse with a one-child policy. That was attempted in China. It is a very unpopular idea. Therefore, nature will precipitously reduce human populations in her own way. The planet wide results are already evident. The Sixth Great Extinction is entirely manmade.

There is time to change our ways. But capitalism has its own deterministic end - ruination of the ecosystem. Population collapse will follow. The herd will be thinned one way or the orher.

Since JFK, the population more than doubled with climate change and drought. The rate of extinctions is ever-accelerating. No life in tide pools from Baja to Vancouver. Birds and insects are dying. We are next.

Yes at some point one way or another humans WILL stop using resources as quickly. Hopefully that way will be due to less and more efficient use of resources. But of course there could be more catastrophic ends.

Diogenes: A lot of very intelligent people agree with your analysis. The world will run out of resources at some point -- certainly not in my lifetime. Best, Don Bauder

Including Alaska that might make sense. Hold on, this is complicated. Looks like the cows are getting more of the homegrown-food than the humans do. Bureau of Land Management statistic is 155 million acres of public land is used for livestock grazing. The continental U.S. of 48 states is 1.9 billion acres with about 788 acres grazed by livestock. www.onegreenplanet.org I suggest we don't put any more cattlemen in the Whitehouse, just saying. Remember when they sued Oprah for saying she didn't like hamburger or some beef? This one from www.epa.gov/agriculture "3,000 acres of productive farmland are lost to development each day in this country." Somewhere said this land is best continent in the world to grow crops but losing it. In 1990, farmland was 987 million acres; In 2000 - 943 million; 2012 - 914 million. And you might want to re-consider Malthusian Theory. Appears Darwin saw some validity. If people willfully sicken and die before they learn to healthfully feed themselves, adult dependents on others to exist, human life has a big problem.

shirleyberan: I don't remember any suit against Oprah over that issue. But I am not saying there was no such suit -- just that I don't recall it. Best, Don Bauder

Right. Oprah and a guest on her show were sued in 1998, for making comments against beef due to the mad cow scare at that time. The plaintiffs sued under the Texas food disparagement law, but they lost.

Ponzi: Speaking of commons: The law doth punish man or woman Who steals a goose from off the common But lets the greater felon loose Who steals the common from the goose.

That may be from 300 years ago. Which proves that crooks are not recent phenomena. Best, Don Bauder

  1. In one more year, the reservoirs will be DRY!

  2. Get out your water bills for one year/seasonal cycle. Add up the twelve bills' HCF. Divide by your property's square feet. Divide by 2. That should be about how many feet of water is used for irrigation in one year. Find your location on this CIMIS map http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/App_Themes/images/etozonemap.jpg See how your use and the ETo for your location compare (you may have to adjust for acre-feet per acre [43,560 sq. ft.]). If your number is bigger, you are using that much more water than you need to. If it is smaller, congratulations! The CIMIS figures are how much water is required to irrigate grass and keep it green.

Report your results here.

Ask, say, the Honorable Mayor and Council, the department heads, professional sports fields, golf courses, etc. to do the same.

Ask, say, the Honorable Mayor and Council, the department heads, etc. to do the same.

The reservoirs will NOT be dry in a year. They will get some more water when the snowpack [yes, it's small] melts and begins its annual flow.

Log in to comment

Skip Ad
Close

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader