So how does California deal with a drought? - Page 3

Kevy Baby · 10-17-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

My first suggestion: let all the golf courses die a grisly death.

For that statement, you should be shot!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chernabog

It's raining like crazy now :P

Which is almost totally irrelevant to the drought (in Southern California). Since (as Alex pointed out) most of our water comes from the Sierras and the Colorado River, rain here is just a way to pollute the oceans.

Alex · 10-17-2007, 09:25 AM

Hey I like golf as much as the next person but you have to admit that in a time of serious water shortage, keeping 7000 yards of fairway a beautiful green should be a pretty low priority.

Kevy Baby · 10-17-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Hey I like golf as much as the next person but you have to admit that in a time of serious water shortage, keeping 7000 yards of fairway a beautiful green should be a pretty low priority.

No, it shouldn't.

(and this is all said with tongue in cheek)

Alex · 10-16-2007, 07:01 PM

If you have a modern low flow toilet (and if you're toilet is newer than 1994 it should be) you probably don't want to do the "brick in the tank" trick since it will probably reduce the flush capacity to the degree that you're flushing multiple times which ends up using even more water (and this is a problem with poorly made low flow toilets without even putting a brick in).

Second, don't actually use a brick. Bricks dissolve in water and can damage the toilet tank when chunks get into places they shouldn't. Also, a standard brick doesn't really displace that much water. If you have a pre-1994 toilet then you can put something of larger displacement capacity that won't dissolve (such as a ballasted gallon milk jug) in there. Of course, if you're committed, simply replacing the old 3.5 or 5 gallon per flush with a modern low flow toilet would probably be a better idea.

There's no reason for every shower to be a luxurious experience and it really shouldn't take more than five minutes and if you start taking a "navy shower" you can cut water use from 60 gallons for a 10 minute shower down to 3 (in a navy shower you use water to get wet and rinse off and turn it off the rest of the time).

BarTopDancer · 10-16-2007, 07:38 PM

Thanks for that brick and toilet info Alex. I didn't know that the newer toilets were already low flow.

As for showers, personally, they are usually 5 minutes or less. But without the water pressure to wash my hair, the time goes up as I try to get the shampoo and conditioner out of my hair. Perhaps the water usage is 6 of one, half a dozen of the other but I feel as if I am using less water without the flow restrictor because the time is less. But that's just me.

€uroMeinke · 10-16-2007, 08:05 PM

I thought we just stole water from other states? I love long showers.

Alex · 10-17-2007, 09:48 AM

Sorry, you never know with golfers.

I once worked with a group trying to get a local golf course to change the way they used chemicals since it was all running off into a nearby steam. Based on member's reactions you'd think we were stringing up their children after first sexually molesting them (and I think some of them would have actually found that more palatable).

10-17-2007, 09:25 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Hey I like golf as much as the next person but you have to admit that in a time of serious water shortage, keeping 7000 yards of fairway a beautiful green should be a pretty low priority.
	Submit to Quotes

10-16-2007, 07:01 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	If you have a modern low flow toilet (and if you're toilet is newer than 1994 it should be) you probably don't want to do the "brick in the tank" trick since it will probably reduce the flush capacity to the degree that you're flushing multiple times which ends up using even more water (and this is a problem with poorly made low flow toilets without even putting a brick in). Second, don't actually use a brick. Bricks dissolve in water and can damage the toilet tank when chunks get into places they shouldn't. Also, a standard brick doesn't really displace that much water. If you have a pre-1994 toilet then you can put something of larger displacement capacity that won't dissolve (such as a ballasted gallon milk jug) in there. Of course, if you're committed, simply replacing the old 3.5 or 5 gallon per flush with a modern low flow toilet would probably be a better idea. There's no reason for every shower to be a luxurious experience and it really shouldn't take more than five minutes and if you start taking a "navy shower" you can cut water use from 60 gallons for a 10 minute shower down to 3 (in a navy shower you use water to get wet and rinse off and turn it off the rest of the time).
	Submit to Quotes

10-16-2007, 07:38 PM	#5
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	Thanks for that brick and toilet info Alex. I didn't know that the newer toilets were already low flow. As for showers, personally, they are usually 5 minutes or less. But without the water pressure to wash my hair, the time goes up as I try to get the shampoo and conditioner out of my hair. Perhaps the water usage is 6 of one, half a dozen of the other but I feel as if I am using less water without the flow restrictor because the time is less. But that's just me. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

10-16-2007, 08:05 PM	#6
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	I thought we just stole water from other states? I love long showers. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

10-17-2007, 09:48 AM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Sorry, you never know with golfers. I once worked with a group trying to get a local golf course to change the way they used chemicals since it was all running off into a nearby steam. Based on member's reactions you'd think we were stringing up their children after first sexually molesting them (and I think some of them would have actually found that more palatable).
	Submit to Quotes