Saving Water

Interesting story in the Ukiah Daily Journal today about some folks in Mendocino County that have made some rather dramatic savings in water use the last few years. I've actually been thinking of doing similar things and I was pleased to see that we're not the only people that don't flush our toilet every time we use it.

I know. Some people get grossed out at the thought leaving a toilet full of pee. A friend of mine seemed really bugged by it. He'd always say, "You know that's not healthy for you". Hey, think of all the water we save and, yes, I do flush it more than once a day and we always flush it after taking a poop. We've lived that way for I don't know how long and I don't know of any problems resulting from it. Wonder just how much money it saves us, if any?

Another thing we started doing earlier this year (and should of been doing since we lived here) is saving the water that would normally go down the drain when we're trying to get warm water in the bathroom. It seems to take forever for the water to get hot in this house and we've wasted God knows how much water waiting for it to warm up.

I think Connie is the one that started it. We put 5 gallon tubs or buckets under the faucet in the shower. By the time they're filled up, the water's usually warm enough. Then we lug the tubs outside to the back yard where she can use them for watering plants. I'll have to admit it's a hassle and is getting old but it's nice knowing we're not wasting the water.

We really should do the same when we need warm water in the kitchen as that takes a long time, too, but it's an extra hassle there as we might need to get dishes and such out of the sink to make room for the tub. Maybe one of these days...

*******

As an aside, in reading the comments to the UDJ story, one commentator mentioned something I was wondering about: Shouldn't all that water running off the roof be allowed to flow into the rivers and help the fish? I don't know, but I can't imagine a few households saving rainwater being that big of a problem.

What if everybody did it? I would think most of the water would soak into the ground near the house. Still, the ground needs water too.

Another comment said that in some states it's illegal to collect rainwater. Wow! What's that all about?

Water

A rather ominous reading in the Times- Standard yesterday suggests we need more regulation of groundwater. That might be true, but I'm not so sure it's as entirely unregulated as the editorial suggests.

I know just last week I was reminded by a customer that many homes in our neighborhood have wells. Or at least had them at one time, anyway. We have one in our back yard that used to have an electric pump attached to it. My customer has one of those old manual pumps over her well and she says it still works.

She told me you can use your well water but said something about having to get permission from, or report to, the city if you do. Anyone know anything about that? Besides, how would anyone know if I started pumping water from my well again?

Not that I'm going to try and steal groundwater. I'm just wonder how they would know?

*******

On a more upbeat note, the Los Angeles Times reports on efforts being made in Southern California to make the region more self sufficient in water. Neat ideas being thought of and taking place, but they do cost money. I especially like their attempts at rainwater storage. They point out that in the winter of 2004- 2005, enough water went into the Pacific Ocean from the Los Angeles River to supply the city for more than a year.

I don't know about drought conditions now but, seems to me, we usually get enough rain in the state for our needs, we just don't have enough places to store it.

Fisheries Looked At

Looks like someone is finally trying to take a look at the state of California's fisheries. I'm probably not alone in thinking they're breathing their last gasp, although perhaps I'm being unduly pessimistic.

As an aside, the Terry Tilman the Times- Standard refers to in the article is, I believe, the same Terry Tillman that used to work for Ecological Analysis Inc. and supervised some biological studies being done at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant when I worked there.

But speaking of fisheries, I was surprised to read in the The Daily Triplicate that Crescent City brings in more dollars per catch than other ports, including Eureka, although other ports bring in more fish. Not sure how that works(?).

The Triplicate article makes it sound like they're doing pretty good with fishing and they want to expand their fish processing operations. One of their biggest obstacles seems to be, believe it or not, effluent discharge. Apparently, the fish processor is having difficulty meeting waste water standards.

Where have we heard that before? Hey, I'm certainly all for clean water, but I have to wonder just how harmful it is releasing what must be basically fish juice back into the ocean?

In any case, let's wish Crescent City luck in their efforts to expand their fish processing operations.