Peeing In The Sink To Save Water?

[GBassNorth]

Skychief - while peeing in the sink probably isn't the smartest thing to do sanitation wise your heart and actions are well meaning. Unfortunately California's water problem is a very complex issue. It has some really low hanging fruit that if plucked would make an immediate difference in the amount of water consumed in the state. For instance, 3 out of every 4 gallons of water consumed in this state is for agriculture. The 4th gallon is divided up amongst all other users (government, military, residents and industry to name a few).

So while you and I are struggling with ways to consume less water - like peeing in the sink, rewearing clothes vs typical wear once and wash, running full loads of laundry vs partial loads, not watering lawns, planting draught resistant landscaping, not installing swimming pools, letting rainfall wash the car, etc. (all of which are responsible things) there are big money Agri industries that are simultaneously sucking up every drop of water we save. Case in point, the California Almond industry consumes 10% of all water used in the state. That's almonds, not exactly a critical food source for humans or livestock - but it has a very high profit margin so farmers cultivate millions of acres of almond orchards per year in of all places, California where water is scarce.

The big user list goes on but the common theme is that Agri and Industry continue to make very wasteful water decisions. Residential consumption of water in the state of California is comparitively speaking, a drop in the bucket. Not to say we shouldn't count those drops very dearly but we darn well need to start addressing the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Here's some eye opening info on where the water goes...
10 percent of California's water goes to almond farming.

 

[sissy kathy]

Skychief - while peeing in the sink probably isn't the smartest thing to do sanitation wise your heart and actions are well meaning. Unfortunately California's water problem is a very complex issue. It has some really low hanging fruit that if plucked would make an immediate difference in the amount of water consumed in the state. For instance, 3 out of every 4 gallons of water consumed in this state is for agriculture. The 4th gallon is divided up amongst all other users (government, military, residents and industry to name a few).

So while you and I are struggling with ways to consume less water - like peeing in the sink, rewearing clothes vs typical wear once and wash, running full loads of laundry vs partial loads, not watering lawns, planting draught resistant landscaping, not installing swimming pools, letting rainfall wash the car, etc. (all of which are responsible things) there are big money Agri industries that are simultaneously sucking up every drop of water we save. Case in point, the California Almond industry consumes 10% of all water used in the state. That's almonds, not exactly a critical food source for humans or livestock - but it has a very high profit margin so farmers cultivate millions of acres of almond orchards per year in of all places, California where water is scarce.

The big user list goes on but the common theme is that Agri and Industry continue to make very wasteful water decisions. Residential consumption of water in the state of California is comparitively speaking, a drop in the bucket. Not to say we shouldn't count those drops very dearly but we darn well need to start addressing the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Here's some eye opening info on where the water goes...
10 percent of California's water goes to almond farming.

Well you could just make commercial agriculture illegal and import all your food.

 

[Webtroll]

Well you could just make commercial agriculture illegal and import all your food.

Or they could start weighing the value of the use per crop, but that would be a hell of a lot of work, no? If 10% is going to almonds and there is a shortage then I would presonally prefer to see the almond crops suffer than the population.

 

[sissy kathy]

Or they could start weighing the value of the use per crop, but that would be a hell of a lot of work, no? If 10% is going to almonds and there is a shortage then I would presonally prefer to see the almond crops suffer than the population.

I think the sensible thing to do is charge the same rate for all water, regardless of intended use. Remember California supplies a LOT of food to this country so cutting off the farmer's water supply or outlawing agriculture out there is not something to do lightly. I do feel that the residents shouldn't be subsidizing the farmers though.

 

[GBassNorth]

All good thoughts. The issue is very complex and I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do have some observations that make me raise an eyebrow as to how seriously the state government really takes this issue.

Questions I have...
we just had some major rainfall in SoCal over the last few weeks. I watched as it ran off my roof, into the gutter, down the storm drain, into a creek bed that leads to the ocean. Yep, a huge portion of the rain we get in this state dumps directly to the ocean. Why aren't there retention ponds and pumping stations to get the water into the reservoirs where its needed? Why do we continue to grow certain non life sustaining non essential water hungry crops (like almonds) in this state vs moving that crop to locations that have a better balance of water availability and climate? Why are we putting billions of dollars into a light rail system for California that will only be used by a very very small percentage of the population when we literally are standing at the brink of a devastating drought that could turn the California into the next dust bowl? Couldn't that money be used to upgrade our aging and inefficient water distribution infrastructure or possibly to build desalination plants?

Unfortunately, I think special interest groups and politics are playing an unnecessarily large part in the odd decision making that goes on in this state. But that's life I guess.

 

[Sav'nBass]

Just seeing this thread again makes me go Eeewwwwww......

 

[tastybasslines]

@GBassNorth

Thank you for taking the time to make all those good points. I enjoyed reading and was interested in what you had to say.

I do believe that we are/have already accelerated the desalination process and that we are actually catching up in that regard. I remebered reading about our plans more than a year ago. Hope it comes soon, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[skychief]

@GBassNorth

Thank you for taking the time to make all those good points. I enjoyed reading and was interested in what you had to say.

I do believe that we are/have already accelerated the desalination process and that we are actually catching up in that regard. I remebered reading about our plans more than a year ago. Hope it comes soon, if I'm not mistaken.

This is great news! Please provide the substantial evidence for this. To date, I have not seen any.

 

[96tbird]

So you Pizz in the sink and wash all the water in the trap down the drain leaving undiluted Pizz in the trap. Niiiiiice. Do it in the yard dawg.

 

[skychief]

Questions I have...
we just had some major rainfall in SoCal over the last few weeks. I watched as it ran off my roof, into the gutter, down the storm drain, into a creek bed that leads to the ocean. Yep, a huge portion of the rain we get in this state dumps directly to the ocean. Why aren't there retention ponds and pumping stations to get the water into the reservoirs where its needed? Why do we continue to grow certain non life sustaining non essential water hungry crops (like almonds) in this state vs moving that crop to locations that have a better balance of water availability and climate? Why are we putting billions of dollars into a light rail system for California that will only be used by a very very small percentage of the population when we literally are standing at the brink of a devastating drought that could turn the California into the next dust bowl? Couldn't that money be used to upgrade our aging and inefficient water distribution infrastructure or possibly to build desalination plants?

All very good questions!

We are all looking for these answers.

Hopefully we will see some pro-active stuff emerge.

To date, this is the best we have to offer as far as the desalination project is concerned:

"Even in drought-stricken California, San Diego stands out. It gets less rain than parched Los Angeles or Fresno. The region has less groundwater than many other parts of the state. And more than 80 percent of water for homes and businesses is imported from sources that are increasingly stressed. The Colorado River is so overtaxed that it rarely reaches the sea; water originating in the Sacramento River delta, more than 400 miles north, was rationed by state officials this year, cutting off some farmers in California's Central Valley from their main source of irrigation. San Diego County, hot, dry, and increasingly populous, offers a preview of where much of the world is headed. So too does a recent decision by the county government: it is building the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere, at a cost of $1 billion."

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]



The desalination programs are delinquent. Which poses some immediate problems.

 

[sissy kathy]

@GBassNorth

Thank you for taking the time to make all those good points. I enjoyed reading and was interested in what you had to say.

I do believe that we are/have already accelerated the desalination process and that we are actually catching up in that regard. I remebered reading about our plans more than a year ago. Hope it comes soon, if I'm not mistaken.

Even the one that is already built and on stand by in San Diego is not operational yet.

 

[skychief]

Well, Gov. Brown made an unprecedented call-to-action today, issuing the first ever mandatory statewide water use reductions. Of course, this largely symbolic gesture is designed to let the voters know he's "on top of things". It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. He could go a step further and push for funding and expediting the construction of desalination plants. Its agriculture that uses a whopping 80% of the available water in California. Any worthwhile solutions will need to start there.

Brown's "bold" price structuring mandate does very little little (or nothing) to help solve the drought crisis in California.

____________________________________________________________________________________________


EL DORADO COUNTY, Calif. -- Gov. Jerry Brown today issued an executive order for statewide mandatory water use reductions, the first-ever order in California's history, according to the governor's office.

With a record-low snowpack amid the state's drought, Brown today directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory 25 percent reductions in water usage by California cities and towns through February 2016.

The executive order also calls on the water board to direct local water agencies to adjust their rate structures to implement conservation pricing.

The order requires school campuses, golf courses, cemeteries and other large landscapes to make significant cuts in water use, and will create a statewide initiative partnering with local agencies to replace lawns with drought-tolerant landscapes, according to the governor's office. A rebate program will also be set up to provide incentives for the replacement of inefficient household devices.

The governor announced the executive order this morning at a manual snowpack survey conducted 90 miles east of Sacramento.

"Today we are standing on dry grass where there should be five feet of snow. This historic drought demands unprecedented action," Brown said in a statement.

"Therefore, I'm issuing an executive order mandating substantial water reductions across our state. As Californians, we must pull together and save water in every way possible," the governor said.

Gov. Jerry Brown issues first-ever mandatory statewide water use reductions | abc7news.com

 

[NWB]

I think Brown should pass a measure requiring everyone in the state to pee in the sink to save water.

 

[catcauphonic]

So you Pizz in the sink and wash all the water in the trap down the drain leaving undiluted Pizz in the trap. Niiiiiice. Do it in the yard dawg.

Aren't sink traps already full of nasty bacteria? As long as you clean the sink regularly and aren't eating anything directly out of there, I wouldn't be concerned about it

 

[Captain Chaos]

How do you guys aim?

 

[GBassNorth]

How do you guys aim?

 

[Clark Dark]

When I lived in PA. I used a simple trick to cut back on toilet flush water. I filled a zip bag with enough water to jam it sideways in the tank and it cut my flush down to 1 gallon.

 

[skychief]

When I lived in PA. I used a simple trick to cut back on toilet flush water. I filled a zip bag with enough water to jam it sideways in the tank and it cut my flush down to 1 gallon.

This is a good trick to conserve (flushing) water. Similar to the 2-bricks-in-the-tank method.

I assume you no longer live in PA, and that you no longer do this to save water.

If so, why?

Just curious...

 

[Innocuous]

Get a couple urinals like they use for patients in their rooms. Wait until you drop a dookie and add the urine. Shake well then flush.

 

[Clark Dark]

This is a good trick to conserve (flushing) water. Similar to the 2-bricks-in-the-tank method.

I assume you no longer live in PA, and that you no longer do this to save water.

If so, why?

Just curious...

Moved to Wisconsin, Lake Michigan is right there, but seriously even though I'm a renter here I bought a low flow toilet from Menards and had the management install it because I do have to pay for water.