You see, after 5 hours, no one gives a damn!

Where are our ecco types?

If it's foolish, ill-conceived, based on greed and harmful to the environment you can damn well bet this gang of neandrethals in victoria will be right on board. rav line, gateway project, kitimat pipeline, off shore oil.....
They're jus a bunch of sleazy front-men for greedy corporations-curse them all!!

The article points out the environmental impact of Canada's ill-conceived open immigration and population growth policies. Ultimately, we will have to confront the question of whether massive population growth in the Delta and elsewhere in Canada is in the public interest.

Grumpy,

No one really needs to say anything other than your original comment, but, OK...

I took Slavonic Studies 205 at UBC in the winter of 1969-70, Economic History and Geography of the Soviet Union, thinking to check out parallels with Canadian economics and geofraphy. There were, indeed, some connections, but one of the things that stands out in my recollection is Professor Hronimoy telling us that the US Geological Survey had the US divided into twelve major river catchments, and that their work told them, in 1961, that half of them were already in deficit for water supply. He went on to explain about how Canada "owned" a disproportionately large supply of the world's fresh water and told us to draw our own conclusions. So I don't stand in the shower, I only water the garden early in the morning and by hand as often as time allows, implement the SaltSpring Flush rule (If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it on down) when it seems appropriate, and so on. But it makes little difference if industry is using potential potable water to pump oil out of dying wells or if large agricultural concerns are spraying crops in the heat of the day. And that situation will continue as long as the majority of us continue to sleepwalk into oblivion.

Geography, that is. I can at least spell decently as my somnabulation to destruction accelerates toward its final cataclysm.

One way of helping the aquifiers would be to stabilize the growth of population. opulation growth in the Lower Mainland and VI are not inevitable or some kind of act of nature. It is a choice made by governments and developers. One way to stop population growth would be to have a moritorium on development. There are other methods as well . See "Better Not Bigger", by Eben Fodor.

Re: anarcho's comment about stopping population growth:

Yup, I'm old as dirt, so I still remember a time when the Earth's population was less than 3 billion (it was around 2 billion when I came along). People can do themselves a favor and generate fewer offspring. We know how to do this, and we don't need governments or developers to practice that other form of safe sex. But it's a conscious decision that requires us to overcome a lot of hard wiring that nature has built into our brains. Survival requires us to acquire as much stuff as we can and to leave our genes lying around as widely as possible. We have now succeeded at these two processes to the point that our very success will obliterate us. So have fewer children and acquire less.

Er, I wasn't suggesting that population growth as a whole was the root of the problem. That is another issue. What I was talking about is the persuit of deliberate growth by developers and governments. If we chose a different form of development - a web of small stable communities rather than concentration and sprawl. As an example: The whole of Canada does not need to move to Vancouver. Why don't they make their own areas attractive instead? By all moving to Vancouver, they turn it into something that you wouldn't want to live in, defeating the whole purpose of moving there.

As communities grow, there may come a point where wells need to be capped and areas converted to a central water system. This would allow for better monitoring of consumption and water quality. Since water is a key commodity for any household, you would think that it would be in the best interest of any municipality to get a handle on this. Then if I chose to have a long shower or hose my driveway off daily, it would be alright as long as I was paying.

It's off-topic but important:
WHATS WITH THE MASS MEDIA, MULTI-FRONT ATTACK ON POOR PEOPLE AND PAN-HANDLERS ALL OF A SUDDEN????????????????????
What, the bull-sh!t "safe-streets" act(for carpet-baggers and robber-barons) wasn't good enough?
Now they've enlarge complied with your mean-spirited rules BUT they, suprise, suprise, didn't actually go away?!?
Well, whats a civilized society to do???
I know! - bum-fights in gm place between canuck games or maybe during intermission.
I'm sure the poverty problem has nothing to do with regressive social policy fostered by the likes of ebenezzer campbell and mike "get the fckin indians outta the park" harris.
And who can forget drunken, brauling ralph "puek" kline and his memorable charity visit to that homeless shelter. Forget Mother Teresa already!!
Yep BC has the highest poverty rate in Canada thanks to new era gordonomics.
I read about on page a18 in the bottom corner of the esteemed fish-rap the province!!
They'll let you a blind man starve on the streets but if you know the right people yehawwwwwww!! - it's golden parachute time!!!
Sell out the workers of BC like slimerson did and line your pockets with a cool multi-million pay-off.
Hey why pay money to go see "Les Miserables" inside the Orpheum when you can watch for FREE outside, in every FCUKING city and town in BC.

Good to see Langley is doing something, I did my own thing by not having kids. Most of you just sit around and whine, how typical, yet you live on land once occupied by forests, now destroyed so you can live there. You consume all the resources you do not want developed now, pathetic hypocrisy. Work to make changes instead of meowing. If you don't like what I say, tell me all about how you don't use in any way, water, gasoline, diesel, electricity and natural gas.

Climber, I suspect that most people here do just that. If even half the population lived the way my friends and I live, the system would have collapsed years ago. This was the whole idea of the "counter-culture" and even though we are old now, we still live as close as we can to that ideal and many of the younger generation have picked up on it and are doing the same. And it is not a matter of not using something "any way" , it is a matter of using it as little as possible.

climber...maybe you`re slightly overestimating the value of what you say

Theres probably quite a few people who really don`t care much what you say..
So what are you saying? And to whom?
We`re all sitting around whining in forests..is that it..or meowing about electricity..is that what we`re all doing? That is when were not heeding what you`re saying of course.
Maybe you`re talking to yourself climber.

Maybe instead of such a dark discussion about humanity, everyone should discuss how most people really do care about the state of the environment. I care (as most parents do) about the future of the world being left for my children.

Yes, but there is a vast difference between caring an doing.

Me -- I feel somewhat helpless after fixing all my gaskets to avoid drips, buying energy saving appliances, low flow shower nozzles, turning down the heat in hot water tank, wearing sweater instead of turning up the furnace, walking or taking a bus wherever it is practical instead of taking the car, etc, etc. -- only to find out it isn't doing any good!

anarcho:

WHAT!!!!??? The very heartblood of our society!!!! Why you, you......anarchist you!!!!!

I don't know about comparing oil with water. It seems obvious that when oil burns, we get a bunch of energy mixed with toxins. Once it's burnt, it's gone. The only residual is crap we don't need.
When water evaporates, it comes back.
It maybe somewhere else, but it doesn't disappear.
This is so basic. Why do we get hung up on this water shortage non-issue.
Victoria is so thirsty, yet she can not get a drink. Why? it's because the CRD is trying to train us how to deal with that dark future day when the water vanishes.
It's so stupid. There is no PEAK WATER scenario coming.

How is it that the U.K. with a population of about 60 million (double that of Canada, about), and a land mass roughly 1/3 the size of B.C. has water? It has been proposed that a massive water line be built to take water from Harrison Lake and run it to the GVRD. Harrison is fed by the Lilloet, the Chehalis and many creeks, then it enters the Fraser and joins the ocean. Now taking some of this water will not drain any aquifers so why not? I would like to see answers to these two questions.

You were saying Climber -
http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/NWOA_6MXD6E_Eng?Opendocument
That social factors do have an influence on water consumption is illustrated by Van Straaten by the fact that in Southern England, the wealthier part, daily use averages 160 liters, while the inhabitants in the less wealthy northern part use 140 liters per day. This still compares unfavorably to continental Europe where 100 liters a day per citizen suffice according to the article. The leakiness of the Victorian water system, adds to the problem.

and this:
http://www.rspb.org.uk/england/southeast/action/droughtreport.asp

or this:

http://www.lenntech.com/water-shortage.htm

Water
Sorta like:
Air
Seems to be lots to go around.

Unless it stops coming out of our personal pipe - nice and clean.

What then?

This is "the big one": I can live without oil (I hope); maybe I can learn to live without trucked in produce.

I can not live without
WATER

Seems that many gardeners in England have been phoning Brian Minter
http://www.mintergardens.com/
to find out how to cope with drought conditions that have never before existed in Merry ol' England........

Climber, why not move parts of Vancouver to Harrison Lake instead? Be good for the construction business........

I was just pointing something out, maybe they have shortages, they consume less per capita but even so. 60 million people vs. 4 milllion in a place 1/3 our size?. RickW, construction is moving north towards Harrison Lake anyways. I think it was before WW1 when Vancouver began piping water into the city. City water doesn't come from a well, it comes from the watersheds in the mountains above the city. Harrison Lake is made up from a far bigger watershed, 40 miles long and very deep, only about 70 miles away from the new resevoir in Queen Liz. park. That will take care of the GVRD for many years. I've always thought it strange to hear of water shortages in the rainforest, the system needs to be upgraded.

http://www.westvancouver.ca/upload/documents/DWV-2005-Water&Utilities.pdf

And this:
http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=1322

Approximately 40% of GVRD drinking water, during the summer, is used for outdoor use. To conserve water, allow your lawn to "go golden" during the summer months! The lawn will naturally return to its green and lush state when the fall rains arrive!

should have noted that blurb - just above - was from the Township of Langley's website.

I understand that your idea is well intentioned, Climber, but isn't it a bit like buying a known alcoholic a case of Scotch to cure his addiction? It is environmentally and socially insane to keep jamming more and more people into fewer and fewer places. It would be better to have people scattered in a large number of small cities and towns rather than all living in Vancouver, Victoria or Kelowna.

Absolutely anarcho... These large cities are a toxic soup and will never be able to clean themselves, even if we are gone.

Small communities are the answer to ease our toxic load for both ourselves and the enviroment. The "authorities" are paid to keep the information on the air and land quality relative to contaminents, away from the general public... Obviously taking the heat off industry and other causes. ...and looky be, cancers are up :-(

Our ansestors lived in small communities, and for our health and the survival of ourselves and our children, this is imo what we have to go back to... Cities are filth.

Yeah G, like organic apples, they are a little scarred, but, who cares... Water is a serious issue, and our thoughts of beauty need to reflect the Natural or we are in trouble...

brother, (though as Duncan said, it is a little tough to find these days as serious issues are facing us...)

RTB

...sorry 'bout the flub at the end. It should say

Peace brother, (though as Duncan said, it is a little tough to find these days as serious issues are facing us...)

RTB

Anarcho, RTB, the people you want to see in smaller places probably need jobs when they arrive, most likely resource jobs are the most available. Then again maybe not as logging, mining and resource transportation should be scaled back or halted, according to many, like you two. I believe it is better for the enviroment if people are concentrated in a dense urban area, rather than spread out all over the place. Smaller "footprint" and all that. Keep all the shit in one corner, so to speak.

First thing, what I propose could not happen over night but would take decades. Secondly, I do not propose that we should stop resource industries - just do them differently. Indeed, following the Europeans, more jobs not less would be the result. And there is no reason why those resources could not be turned into goods in those small towns. Once again borrowing on the ideas in Europe - (Emilia Romagna) = more jobs. As for concentration being ecologically a good thing, I am afraid no scientists, that I know of would agree. Remember my posting about science?

anarcho, once again, you make good sence, right on dude. Indeed, a change of values does not happen over nite...."decades", likely. We are in trying times largely because our values are being challenged. Simplicity vs. complexity... We need less then what we think we need, to have a full and meaningful life, and small communtities imo, are one step towards a healthier, simpler lifestyle...but it takes time.

Resourse developement, I am not against it, but only if it is done sustainably and kindly to Mother Earth. We can not continuing to rob from our children climber, and imo, nothing less then kindness to the earth which is also respect to the generations to come, will do. This requires as anarcho said, to "just do them differently". Indeed it has to be done kindly and sustainably and guess what "logging larry", that does not include clear cuts, water waste, and leaky pipelines through pristine habitat plastered with cancer causing death chemical to prevent green things growing on top and so on...Hello.

Your eliquence is impressive... (tongue firmly planted in cheek). So climber, because you care about the future generations and their impact on the earth and really believe this, then you must be living in the big city, right??? (tfpic again).

As anarcho said, science would not support you on this one. The earth is self-cleaning if the "shit is not all in one corner". Small, intelligently designed, earth friendly communities is a "smaller footprint" dude. Check into to this, I dare you to move your goalpost...

Anything done that does not allow the earth to clean herself should not be done ie. cities, oil sands, pipelines, and oil tankers... You get where I am going with this. This isn't your first rodeo dude...

Peace

RTB

Woouldn't be so bad if they actually did that. But they like to "share".........

Might not be so bad if the cities actually bought the water, electricity, et al, from the regions that produced them; then dealt with the detritus instead of "sharing".......

Well put RickW. The city filth spreads via air, and water. City contamination is far-reaching...

Peace

RTB

I have been looking around the net to find what I thought I had heard before and I was right. The Sierra Club is calling for densification to reduce the use of oil and pollution, for starters. Having people spread out will mean actual deforestation, as it will mean more houses, a highrise only takes up the same amount of space "footprint" no matter if is 5 or 100 stories. People living in a city can walk or bike to work or travel on a decent transit system, if Vancouver ever gets one. They can walk to the store, not drive to the malls etc, the concentration of population means infrastructure, like sewage treatment plants can be built economically. Small towns in B.C. duplicate services and cost more money and natural resources to run than cities, on a per capita basis. The Queen Charlotte Islands are probably one of the biggest consumers of resources in the province, per capita. Electricity here is powered by huge diesel generators, most food and pretty well everything else comes here on a ferry, barge or plane. Other remote places are similar, unless the smaller places you advocate populating are on the power grids (gas, power) and share a water line, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Now, if these places are already on the grid, the services will have to be upgraded, powerlines made bigger, and so on, people may actually protest this damage to the enviroment that will take place. About herbicides being sprayed on rows, check out what I say about this in the pipeline story. I don't waste water, don't have kids, what do you want? And again, yet again, I don't log, I climb trees to prevent them from blowing down into creeks, for like the third time.

Climber, does this mean you climb trees left in a clear cut, then kindly lop off the tops to prevent them from falling into the creeks? If so, did the "zuk say this works?? explain please. Do you defend clear cutting a forest??

Relative to the rest of your post, as anarcho and I have said..."it takes time to change". Didn't you read my post about change coming from heart. We value such unimportant things... IMO we need to put the importance into the things that are eternal. Then we will have things like a healthy enviroment promoting healthy ecologies and sustainable energy in the future.

How we get from "awareness of need" to "a-doing"...well, it is slowly happening for sure, but for today it can start at home...

Peace

RTB

The "zuk" as you refer to him says that these strips left in clearcuts always blow down and then the logging company gets the wood anyways. Totally untrue, the trees we top do not blow down, even if they did, the logging company is not going to bring back grapple yarders and log loaders for a couple of truckloads of wood, not worth it. I'll explain it to you, in the past they just clearcut everthing, over creeks with no regard. Now the cutblocks are laid out with many factors considered, the clearcuts are way smaller. There is a strip of trees left along the creeks, these trees standing alone, or on the edge of the remaining forest will get blown down. So we climb them and top them, so then they don't blow down, pretty simple really. So either David Suzuki is ignorant of this, or he knows and doesn't change the misinformation on his website. I have explained clearcut logging to you on other posts, told you of how it comes back, how it really is the only way to log on the steep ground of the coast. There was logging in the past, that is getting logged for the second or even third time in this province, I keep explaining that to you. Now speak to what I say about the reasons for density being better for the enviroment, seeing as I answered your question.

They are referring to density in urban areas. The disaster is suburban sprawl, not villages and small towns surrounded by farm land and green belts. Of course density in urban-suburban areas makes more sense, but it would be better to have a large number of smaller settlements rather than one vast agglomeration, even a dense one. Once again I refer you to Europe with its vast number of villages and small towns connected by rail and forest or farm between. Much better way to live.

Austria, Germany, the Jura region of France and the moutainous areas of Norway and Sweden also have steep sides - and they don't engage in BC-type logging practices.

European countries are so different in comparison regarding space, population and even tree size that it makes little sense to compare them to us. The distances to travel there are short, the population per square mile is huge, the trees are tiny. They have monoculture treefarms on mostly low sloping ground, that they can process, that is fall, limb and buck with the same machine. They can run mini-yarders because of the small wood on the steeper ground. Here on the coast the distances are long, the population is small and the trees range from big to huge. Clearcut logging involves opening up a face, or open area to fall the trees into, trees are then felled into this expanding opening. There are rules that govern this work, in one of my W.C.B. books on logging it says "selective logging is decidedly more hazardous", and it is. You are not to brush standing trees with falling trees, as branches can be flung back onto you, or can be left broken off, high up, to later fall on someone else, they are called "widowmakers" It is impossible to not open up at least a little face if selectively falling, then you are presented with falling everything into that small opening, without brushing other trees, or getting trees hung up in standing trees. The trees generally lean down hill, you try to fall them sideways and downhill so they don't break or slab. When you yard the logs out, it is usually downhill or uphill on angles. When you yard, how do you snake these big logs out, without getting them caught on other trees and so on, all the while hoping no widowmakers come down on your crew. Real easy to talk about on the computer, it already is a dangerous job, and you want to introduce more hazards. Before you go off about how someone selectively logged this or that, if they used a skidder or tracked machine that wasn't a yarder to yard the logs, it was not steep ground, like most of the coast is. There are good reasons for clearcutting and its not just about money. I am not a faller, but I have fell trees into standing timber before, a few times, mostly away from powerlines in the bush. When the tree goes over and hits the other trees on its way to the ground, the branches rain down all over. Thats one thing, no one is going in there to do anything, like choke that log or hang a block, thats good cause the spears remain above the felled tree. Maybe you two could research a bit on this subject and educate yourselves on loggers, the other endangered breed.

climber, again dude, where there is small towns or communities the enviroment which is inclusive of land, air and water, is cleaner then cities...period. Small communities like Slocan, Powell River, and many more, are attempting to also emmerse themselves in sustainable lifestyles which include buying and growing foods locally. There is organic farms throughout these areas and more all the time. Along this path, things are improving and new energy systems are always being worked on...

When I was at the Central Coast, one of the small community stores was selling frozen thailand shrimp... This particular community did not understand the importance of supporting local fisherman. The cost of bringing in thailand shrimp is astronomical compared to buying and supporting locally. They simply need the education on supporting their communities in this way. I am sure they would do it once they knew that they should...

Educated small communities trumps cities dude, get over it.

By the way climber, I appreciate your efforts to inform me once again of what your job entails... Basically, from what I understand it's taking tops off trees in a clear cut that, according to David Suziki, are going to fall down anyways. How shall I say this, there is a good chance dude, I will take David Suzuki's truth over yours... Don't take it personally... It's his track record, you know...

Peace

RTB

...Your there by choice dude, and so are the loggers. Yes it is dangerous, no doubt, but clear cuts should not be done in the first place. The safty issue is sad, but yuz takes' yours chances...

Peace

RTB

RTB, the Zuk says on his website that the trees that are now left behind because of the smaller, more enviromentaly friendly clearcuts blow down. He doesn't actually say smaller more friendly, just fukin with ya, he just says " the trees that are left" Sometimes they do, if left alone, when topped however they don't, thats what I do. He is ignorant of or ignoring this. Anyways, even you couldn't imagine him saying how much better logging is for the enviroment now. About smaller places, I like them a lot, what I am talking about is the enviromental costs of economies of scale. The whole pyhsical footprint thing. That shrimp story is crazy, I would like to see more food grown here, of course. If people move from the cities to small places (I don't consider Powell River small) they won't be small very long, and then there will be more land clearing and deforestation to house people. And the beefed up services, as I said before. Regarding logging safety, it will mean more sad days in this province if those who don't understand how to log get a say and stop clearcutting. Guys know that chance is involved, no matter how much they try and work safe, and clearcutting eliminates many chances. If you are risking your own life, I think you can play the game how you want to huh?. When everthing is on the ground, nothings going to get you, from above anyways.

climber:

Except for:
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/06/12/Kunstler/

... I was on a trip when this story came out on the Tyee. Thanks RickW... Both valuable, and relative information given the thread...

Peace RickW...RTB

Climber:

...There inlies the answers to most of your questions. Now, the only thing you need to question is what impact are you really making on the earth. No kids...good, but what about our kids man?? Anyways, we all need to answer to the next generation relative to the actions and choices we made in ours...

IMO at this point, with the urgent issues of the Mother Earth, our personal impact is either good or bad. There is nothing in between. Certainly as a whole\group, it is clearly bad... This needs to change, but it starts with a personal responsiblity towards this truth...

Peace

RTB

Each of us, as human beings, generates a certain amount of "detritus", simply by breathing and eating, and excreting. But cities are good examples of the whole being far greater than the sum of its' parts. The detritus generated by several million of humans gathered in one spot, if divided equally among the inhabitants, is far greater than a single person may generate in isolation. It's called "progress", and it reflects the true definition of "economy of scale" when ALL factors are taken into account.

Climber, I agree that cutting on steep slopes makes clear cutting necessary. But this does not explain why gradual slopes and plateaus are also clear cut. No, I don't think an exact copy of what they do in Europe is possible here, though I think there methods should be examined and adapted where possible. But perhaps it is too late to do much. Ours is the legacy of robber baron capitalism, cut it all down and sell it as quickly as possible and to hell with the future. This is why it is necessary to cut slopes because all the more accessible trees are gone. Had there been some sort of foresight, accessible trees would now be old enough to cut and this could be done selectively so as not to create a great amount of environmental damage. Maybe there is no compromise possible. People will have to decide what they want. Maybe if the environment is the big concern we have to phase out cutting for export and just cut enough for our own needs.

RickW, thank you for that link and the link to the Stirling engine. This chap paints a bleak picture, maybe a little dramatic, but worth looking into a bit more.

Climber, I find Coyote to be erudite and down to earth. He does not, however, suffer fools well and says what he feels. Perhaps he is wrong to dismiss you as a fool and an enemy, but you must understand what we are up against. Over the past 25-30 years our rights and living standards have been under constant attack from the ruling elite. This makes us angry and in a fightin' mood. You come along and repeat a lot of what seems to be corporate propaganda and it can't help but piss some people off. Furthermore, as Coyote says people do come here to play with us and to disrupt. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but maybe some other folks aren't able to.

Some years ago a developer wanted to put a mobile home park into this small community, about 55 km from the nearest town. I smelled a rat and started invetigating the real costs.

BCLands, as it was called at the time, was collaborating with the developer, who would have bought the land from them for next to nothing. The corruption was incredible, they were lying their eyes out, as we found out from documents we received through the FOI Act. papers I still have.

According to BC lands figures the developer would have made a yearly profit of $100,000, but by my calculations the park would have cost the taxpayer $400,000/yr. in additional, mostly schooling etc. costs.

One of the things I found out from the BC Ministry of Environment was that the water use of cities is calculated at 1,400 US gallons per person per day.

I followed this up for years and came to the conclusion that urbanization is the biggest cause of water shortages, and the main users and wasters are not people, but industry, especially electronics, like computers, where the making of a single 6" chip costs 100,000 litres of water.

Another huge user are feedlots for cattle and pigs. It is estimated that it costs approx. 1,500 US gallons to add a single pound of meat to a calf in a feedlot, on account of the problems caused by the overpopulated density, whereas calves raised in the open use only a few gallons, as we know from our own animals.

In other words, the biggest water, and generally resource and energy waster is the present warp mimded market economy theory, of "wealth creation", paid for with water.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Fiat;
Where does this water go after it is used by industry?

Anarcho, thanks for that, I can see Coyote is an intelligent chap with a broad, far reaching knowledge of many things. That being said, there is no need for him to be so dismissive and insulting. I am aware of the fact that the standard of living peaked around 1973 and this country is not what it once was, among other related things. To blow all development off with the same insults and inferences isn't really helpfull. The "its Gordo, Bush, neocons, nazis blah, blah blah," spin on the enviromental/development stories must get tiring and old to some people here. One of the reasons for the decline in the standard of living is the decimation of the manufacturing industry in Canada, resource extraction and transportation jobs pay well and provide a good standard of living. But many on this site want to deny people that living as well. Variety of opinion is good, is it not? Or do you want the same rehashed opinions, day after day?

Just heard on the news yesterday about the "amalgamation" of Domco and Weyerhauser(?), with the latter owning 55% of the combined companies. One of the market analyst said that a major reason for this was their inability to manufacture pulp at a low enough cost to compete with the more modern South American companies, which could put out twice the product at half the cost.

So a question is: why are we in the pulp business at all, when the whole world can make this for less?

I never did here from Fiat, where the water goes.
Is there rocket ships loaded with water headed into space right now, destined to dump this H2O into outer space, where it can never go home again?
I'm sorry but I don't understand this thread.

What don't you understand Ron?

That water is a finite resource without which humans and animals, not mention plants, can't live.

That we're wasting much of that precious resource and that we have no real idea what the nature of the problem is.

That subsoil moisture exists in finite aquifers that are being drawn down by the use of wells and then, in some cases the water is being wasted for agricultural purposes that are neither necessary nor truly efficient.

What don't you understand? That's why the title of the piece is 'Pumping Blind'.

Thanks for admitting you have no idea what nature of the problem is.
When it comes to water, there is neither a problem nor any need to worry about waste.
Do you know what water is?
Taken a bath lately?
This must be some kind of BIZZARO world.
How can you not understand that H2O always comes back somewhere.
There simply is no doubt about it.

So, when you've spent 1/2 million (or so) building next to a water supply, only to have it "come back somewhere else", it kind of like having no water at all, right? Now what?

Rick, don't worry about it we have lot's of water. We can't get it to the point of no return around here.

How come then they have to water the trees in Vancouver this year...........?

DOn't worry about Ron. He'll be the first one knocking at your door when the water shortages actually start to cut deeply. It's called the grasshopper syndrome.

I don't know if you ever owned any property thick Rick, but I have. And I always water the trees on my properties. Like the grass, vegetables and flowers, I water them.
Just to recap, water doesn't simply disappear. It can't escape, it can't go anywhere. It evaporates, forms clouds and rains down on us again.
If, for some reason you still don't get it, please tell us why.

Have you read the essay Ron?

The point is that a fairly high proportion of the water being used to water 'your' plants and flush your toilet and water your car comes from deep aquifer sources that AREN'T renewed by the water cycle. Google ‘Ogallala aquifer’ if you really want to learn something and stop spouting nonsense.

It's always advisable to engage your brain before releasing the clutch on your keyboard. Grasshopper! Many of the resources we’re spending ( in a collective sense) won’t be there tomorrow.

This is a very, very good point and something the left does not understand.

I thought you weren't coming here any more maybelle?
WHo do you think is going to benefit from the Weyerhauser/Domtar "merger"?
There's a little story in the New York Times this morning that you should read. You can find it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/business/27deals.html?ei=5094&en=9c5156d4bce3dcb9&hp=&ex=1156737600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1156695071-SgrfvU2d3M5H13VTgUqiFQ

Love those corporate capitalist crooks. One day, if ordinary people get the wind up and realize their power - you're all going to be redundant - not just the workers.

The essay is the essay, the comments upon the essay are the comments upon the essay. My questions are to those comments, not the essay. My question is how can anyone be so stupid, that they cannot understand that water doesn't simply disappear. That water is leaving the earth somehow. That is the trick of the essay. To try to confuse those that want to hear that the sky is falling, when it isn't.

Ronny, you little grasshopper,
My question to you is: How can you be so stupid as to read the essay and then post a remark that indicates that the water cycle has anything to do with the issues addressed in the essay?

Whether or not the sky is falling is a matter of complete indifference to someone like you who can't make the obvious connection to the overuse and unmonitored depletion of well water and the state of subsurface aquifers. The health of the water cycle and the storage and pollution of surface water are completely different subjects. Neither of which, I'd suggest, you understand either.

You're like the dummy in the corner of the classroom who has mastered 2 + 2 = 4 who keeps jumping up in calculus class saying 'teacher, teacher, I know the answer!'

The truth is, Ron , you don't even know the question. In the immortal words of Forrest Gump: ‘Stupid is as stupid does.’

Have a nice day G West, I'm goin golphin.

That's what grasshoppers do Ron. Gopher a hole in one fella!

G,

I never said I was going away. I just said that I am tired of some of your (and others) posts.

I am not sure what your NY Times link is telling me - other than there are some shady trading practices. Sure - that kind of stuff happens - nothing is flawless.

Anyway - nice to see that you are as pessimistic and resentful as ever!!

Yes you did.

And I wish you had, because you waste my time.

The link points out the kind of people and illegal and immoral behavior - in service, not of people and progress - but of profits. It points out that no amount of regulation or false promises will ever counteract the greed and lies of capitalism and corporate welfare.

You're the hateful one. You prefer artificial constructs - corporations -over real people and their interests. And you're not prepared to pay an equitable share of the costs of building a decent society for everyone instead of a plutocrat’s paradise for a few. Freedom and democracy will eventually bring you down.

I don't resent you, I pity you. And I'll try to make sure your lies get slapped down every time you post them. You and Ron Erwin (IAMC) make a wonderful couple.

GWest, the water in the GVRD and almost everywhere else on the coast of B.C. does not come from aquifers, it comes from resevoirs fed by rainwater and snow melt. Water doesn't really vanish, like Ron says, but it should be conserved and kept clean. The GVRD needs more water, a new pipeline, like out of Harrison Lake. At the same time consevation measures should be implemented. I see on the pipeline story comments I have been demonized and put in the same camp as Ron and Capitalism, along with Logjam 603, oh well, I heard the past used to be kill or be killed, now it is labell, or be labelled.

CMAI:

Well, it used to rain in the area we presently call the Sahara:
http://www.cosc.brocku.ca/~vwojcik/sahara.htm
Now it doesn't. Can you please tell me why?

Interesting info on the world's water situation in the New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9801-global-water-crisis-looms-larger.html

Yes, it can. Pumping out aquifers can result in their partial destruction, as sands and dirt begin to fill in the areas formerly occupied by the water.

And once cleared of greenery, most areas lose their abiity to trap and use rainwater, or even to act to form it. When the Amazon Basin is ruined, there will no longer be the rainfall it gets now.

But that's probably okay with some folk, as long as they can make money off it.

Or how the lack of transpiration (because the trees are gone) leads to a decrease in moisture in the Costa Rican Cloud Forest...................

That's all right though. We'll just pump some watrer in there and it will be OK.......

climber
The essay deals with wells and the possible unknown deficits of subsurface water.

In fact, here's the subtitle of the article:

Ron kept referring to the water cycle as if that was somehow the only thing one had to understand. I think you're being overly sensitive, btw.

I'm sorry but the water thing always gets me goin. I live in Victoria which is extremely dry in the summer. That's when we need water from our RESEVIOR, I said reservoir, a reserve, for those dry days of summer. Our reserve is fuss, and yet we are still expected to allow our gardens to die. Why?
It's borders on ridiculous. All for a feel good, stupid need to be prepared or a possible future water shortage, which is impossible. Cowichan Lake has more water than we could ever use in a trillion years.
It's like climber said about the situation in Vancouver.
There is no shortage of water, but we need the infrastructure to get it here.

Ron, you have a very short memory. The dam was only just raised to the current level in the last 24 months or so. Prior to that, Victoria had regular water shortages, real shortages, because the old dam was cracked and the reservoir could not be filled. It is only a matter of time before increasing demand makes the new reservoir obsolete as well. Given the fact that the last couple of years have had less rainfall than normal it probably won't be long.

But, be that as it may, you still don't understand the problem that the essay is addressing - but, what's the use, you just don't get it. You’ll only catch on when it’s too late and that’s why others have to push you aside and take over – for the good of us all.

Water Shortage???

If California (though barely) can quench the thirsts of 40M residents with 1/100th of the rain we get - it goes without saying that we have enough water.

Stop being ridiculous G West...

Capitalism (et al):

But did California PAY someone for the water the use? They had to TAKE it from somewhere. Did they (in the best traditionas of capitalism) BARTER for it? Did the people in whose backyard the water flowed or rested, receive compensation? Did for instance, Mexico get paid for the water the Colorado River no longer supplies, because the Iperial Canal drains it off?

Io is it that the "best traditions" of capitalism consist of simply TAKING things, and giving the finger to whoever woned it in the first place (especially if that person or people are smaller and helpless)?

Capitalism/Maybelle
You don't know what you're talking about, as usual. Check your facts - California has and has had serious water shortage problems that are getting worse year by year. Google the Ogallala Aquifer and check the drawdown rates.
I guess you haven't read the essay either just like Ron.

RickW knows more about where California gets its water and what the actual costs of that have been. Shake your head

I was up North in the goldfields, you can see the extent of the clear cutting that went on to feed the boilers of the steam donkeys and dredges. Even when you look at the old pictures of the gold rush, there is not a tree to be seen in the local vicinity.

If you increase the densification of the cities, you are going to tax the infrastructure to the point of collapse. Where is the water coming from and where is the sewage and garbage going? For a “green city” I am surprised looking out my office window that there are few buildings with a green space on the roof to absorb runoff and reduce the strain on our storm drain system. However compared to many cities our sidewalks contain quite a few breaks in the asphalt to allow water in, building in gardens/plants into roundabouts, meridians and such can all help.

I found the mention of runoff return interesting, but how do they prevent contamination? A return well would allow direct flow without filtration of any kind or do they use a sand/gravel filter?

We had visitors from Asia just the other week, they were amazed at how much area we have set aside for our watershed, something they can’t do.

You don't go taking as much water from a lake as you like. Low water levels cause havoc with fish and everything else.

As for California, there's a reason parts of Mexico have dried up. People living in some of these areas are desperate for a fraction of the water they used to have. Should we follow this fine example, and divert our rivers so that only a tiny trickle flows into the US?

Canadians = 350 gallons/day/capita;

Israel (properous middle east country) = 350 litres/day/capita

(that's about 92 gallons, folks....or a little more than 25% of what we use.

West Bank Palestinians get about 70 litres, or 20% of what Israelis get, and about 5% of what we waste)

We don't have to tap lakes....

There is no water shortage on the B.C. coast, at all ever, there are no aquifers that need to be used. There is more water than we could ever use, we live in a fukin rainforest for Christs sake. The Cleveland damn was built 50 years ago, time for more water, put the big pipe into Harrison Lake and quit talking about it, yes they have a water shortage in the Okanagan, it is almost a desert. Now don't go off about lowering the level of the Harrison Lake, it is deep and long, and has a river running out of it that is very close in distance and elevation to the Fraser. Why bring the Palestinians or Israelis into this, who gives a fuk, this is about here and now, in B.C., deal with it.

climber - no one said there was. The article is about subsurface water - aquifers - and the fact that unrestrained use of wells (particularly for irrigation purposes) may well be drawing down those levels.

If you have scientific knowledge about that I'd be glad to hear it. On Vancouver Island and on the Gulf Islands it is a serious problem, period. I'll bet there are areas in the Caribou where there are concerns as well.

The Gardiner Dam and Lake Diefenbaker were meant to transform South Western Saskatchewan into the Garden of Eden. They didn't.

Merely having a lot of water in a lake isn't everything.

Google Lake Aral.

Actually they did, the article states how Langley, White Rock, etc. are sucking water out of aquifers, they are on the coast. I agree about not using aquifers too much, I understand, now how hard can it be to pipe in water to areas in the entire GVRD from rivers or lakes? And, yes, again, conservation has to be made a priority.

Is Oakridge Shopping Mall still using the spring which lies beneath it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

26,000 sq. miles of viable waterway, diverse habitat, fishers made a living for 1000's of years, and now maybe 6,000 sq. miles of poisoned water - all in 50 years.

Harrison Lake is long and deep, huh?

PS
Harrison Lake - a paltry 87 sq. miles. Aral Sea was drained at about the rate of 130 sq. miles per year.

Thank you RickW. You may take a bow.

Thank you....I will take a compound bow then...........

PS I'd still like to know from rightistas how in the heck they can expect to "go out there" and simply TAKE the water they think they need....

What I got from this article was the problem is taking the water out of the ground and not putting it back (pumping it into rivers and oceans). We should be watering our lawns, gardens, etc. like crazy to get that water out of the reservoirs and rivers and back into the ground where it is needed more (so that it replentishes the rivers and reservoirs). Deep auifiers may be endangered, but shallow wells should be used to the max. We should be concentrating on less water to the pipes (low flush toilets) and more water into the ground. Grey water conservation?

http://tofino.travel.bc.ca/cities/tofino/tofinfo/
Annual Rainfall: 324 cm (127 in.)
Annual Snowfall: 53 cm (21 in.)

Water shortage forces businesses in B.C. town to turn off taps
Hotels and other commercial businesses in the Vancouver Island tourist town of Tofino will have to stop using water by Friday [01 Sept.'06]
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/08/29/1784412.html

Well, well, well........

So, I wonder just who the people were who allowed business and residential development without any regards whatsoever to water supply?

I wonder how the patrons of such world class hotels, such as The Wickaninnish Inn

http://www.relaischateaux.com/en/search-book/hotel-restaurant/wickaninnish/rates

with their $400 - $1500/night rates will fare? Will they understand that these fees don't necessarily allow them unlimited access to the local water....?

So Loggy, Cappy, Ronny, etal.....what do we do now, brighlights? I would imagine that the typical reaction would be to shrug (in the best Trudeau style) and say something like: "Tough excrement! That's not here. Too bad!"

Jesus H., look Harrison Lake is fed by rivers and creeks, it drains out of one river. Now if you pull less water out of the lake than flows out how can you drain it? I have both taps running into my bathtub, the drain is out, the tub is filling a little faster than its draining, there is no dam on the Harrison river, what don't you understand here Rick?

BIG IF......If They pulled less water out of the reservoir on Meares than went into it, then Tofino wouldn't be in a critical water shortage. If they diverted one river to the Aral Sea instead of both, then the lake would have maintained a viable fishery. So why not just tap the Fraser River........?

Forget it, pointless going on.

You are not very good a explaining things, are you? But then, it's a problem most people who don't want to "pay the piper" have.......

Rick W.

If you want to know how CA got their water, read up on the Owen Valley War... It happened a long time ago, and so Googling it (in quotation marks) only gives you one reference, but there were times when the ranchers and farmers dynamited the Owens Valley Aqueduct. They lost in the end, of course. Los Angelas could afford more armed detectives... and today the Owens valley is a desert. All the water goes to swimming pools and flush toilets in L.A.

And methinks folks like Capitalism and IAMC will be only too happy to sell B.C. water to the Americans...

I suggest we have to do two things.

1. Conserve water

2. Not pollute what we have.

Now is the time for all greenies to come to the aid of their province... with composting toilets, among other things.

Amend the municiple act to allow it!

Or maybe it was here that someone was pooh-pooing water shortages in rain forests.

I suppose that sanguine attitude still pertains in Tofino this weekend!

Too bad that they make these things so the "less than middle class" can't afford them.......

There used to be a municipal incentive to purchase compost bins. Don't know how popular it was but I got mine, and still have it. So if our "esteemed" authorities were actually serious about environment, instead of payng lip service...........

Not only there but check out the "war" Las Vegas is having with northern Nevada & Utah over water.

And I guess there are those who would relish the thought of Vancouver viilantes riding out to terrorize and subdue the countryside for their water.....hm....not unlike a certain "war" happening in a prominent Middle East nation:
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/McCallin_blooms.cfm

And today's headline in Victoria Times Colonist reads:
Tofino cuts off water to tourists

Strangely enough, a full day after a Toronto newspaper broke this...........

RickW
How about this. If Vancouver wants more water from the interior (which is where it actually comes from) then they put their LNG terminal at Roberts Bank...and not up the coast at Kitimat.

Doesn't fit into the Times-Colonist's tourist entrapment ethos I guess. To say anything untoward about H20 at Tofino...this way they're covering a Toronto story and their advertisers won't rebel.

Some free press.

Free to make money. That rule #1. Rule #2 is to carry the word of "anyone but the left". Rule #3 is to present some news........

.....they should pay the interior for it. And if the interior doesn't want to sell it, then set up a desalinization plant, or a processing plant for Fraser River water. And to make sure that sweage is well-treated, put the outlet pipe upstream from the water plant......

Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink. You can be surrounded by water and still have a water shortage, like Tofino. Water CAN disappear if you pump it down aging oil wells, like they do in Alberta, to recover the last bit of the field. Funny thing is the water is more valuable then the oil or natural gas.

Water that comes from the ground comes from the sky first and it gets there by trees recycling it. If you cut all the trees then the water stops coming from the sky - bye bye your civilization.

Egypt used to be a major grain growing area of the ancient world, that was pre - sands. People can look around and see water but that does not get it to you in a form that you can use.

Governments, sponsored by psychotic corporations, will not stop the pillage of nature. The slash and burn capitalists have nowhere else to go so people fight wars over dwindling resources.

As Gandi said - You Must Be The Change You Want To Produce. We all need to stop wasting water and RickW, your efforts are not wasted.

I like this site because of the passion that people express even though there are posts that do not make sense to me.
Local governments can enact bylaws that require buildings to have water conservation and recycling built into them.
If a development wastes water then it should not get built.
Farmers need to learn what practices will increase their soil water holding capacity so that they can be more efficient users of this precious resource.
Industrial users, like the Tar Sands, already recycle water but still the Athabasca river is being sucked dry. The cost benefits of more Tar Sands needs to be looked at, especially since all the oil produced gets sent to the USA.

No simple or easy solutions, no denying that a problem exists. If necessity is the mother of invention, perhaps we can avoid the often repeated path of history and not fade into oblivion because of our short sightedness.

Water is too cheap in Canada and the USA. On the counter, be reminded how privatization of water does not work. The UK, many countries in Africa etc have shown this by example. So, keep water as a public resource - one of the good roles for government, and start charging a fair price for excessive water use - something along the lines of once usage goes above some rate (3 bedroom house, two bathrooms....but not for summer lawn watering maybe...) Bill on a sliding scale. Tax benifits to those businesses who recycle and reduce total water use. Help farmers change over from current wasteful irrigation practices....again tax credits, or allow them to make more money off their products....

Water is too cheap. And as has been said, it doesn't dissappear, it just goes somewhere else..so we'll never really run out - except for the 'kind' that we can use, and we can access.

The Colorado River no onger reaches the sea. The American's want our water - easier than reducing their use. We want to build pipelines and divert rivers for the same reasonns - it is easier than using less.

Attack me one and all.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/08/30/bc-tofino2.html

"The community's year-round population is about 1,800, but it swells during summer months to about 18,000.

It's estimated that more than one million people a year visit the picturesque fishing village"

But it is obvious they do not. Local governments seem to epitomize the Campbell government's "strategy" of only fixing things as they become apparent....much like closing the barn doo afte the horse has left. In the case of Tofino, the council KNEW how many visitors came, and they KBEW this number was increasing (heck, it's what they lusted after, for revenues if nothing else). But they had to wait until they ran out, before they beleived they would run out of water.

Rick, I've seen composting toilets for anywhere from 900 to 1600 bucks. Now if you can do a full septic system with a ceramic flushtoilet and plumbing for that, or even twice that, post the contractor's name, because I sure haven't.

I can't understand why contractors aren't pushing for them...

RickW
I'm not sure the CBC story covers the whole of local opinion. The main councilor quoted is the president of the local chamber of commerce.

My understanding is that the community voted 'No' to increasing the size of the reservoir because the people who live there all year round don't like the direction that growth and development (all of which use the water) is taking the town.

I'm not too concerned if a few big developers building monster homes for three-month residents on the foreshore decide to go somewhere else or not build at all...We need another Banff, Not!

Anyway, just something I heard.

ripponfalls:
The CRD in Victoria had a subsidy on for compost bins a few years back. It encouraged people to compost. Just have to ramp it up. And, as with most other things, volume brings down the price. It's a matter of whether government (aka "the people") is really serious about matter environmental, or are simply uttering the words.......

G West:

Listened to Ucluelet dis Tofino today, accusing the latter of being the cause of their own misfortunes. They evidently had several referendums about water, all of which were voted down by the citizenry. So, if the permenent residents of Tofino didn't want development, why did the munipality go aheasd anyway? And why did the local citizenry not voice strenuous objections, when they saw the direction Tofgino was heading?

Dunno RickW - possibly the development areas are outside the local council's jurisdiction - maybe the locals have been objecting...I just don't know.

But I think the crocodile tears of the councilor quoted in the CBC piece are really suspect. I expect the major effects of this little crisis will be on a few students who head home before the weekend rather than after and the big tourist operators and water hogs will be just fine.

No doubt Jenny Chan will shill for Campbell for a few hundred thou and there will be a bigger reservoir to feed the beast in fairly short order. Will that be a good thing for Tofino and Long Beach – I ain’t so certain?

I see what widget tourism is doing to Victoria every day and it's disgusting. I don't know what the answer is, but relying on cruise ships, shuttle buses, Butchart gardens and the Government St strip wouldn't cut it for me if I were a tourist. It's all crap - pardon my French!

Just realized that should be Ida Chong and not Jenny Chan who's shilling for money from the Premier. Apolgies to all.

This Tofino "entrepreneur" (LeFevre) who's pushed trucking in water is a classic example of "development" that does not get limits to growth - but instead tries to blame the symtpoms on something or someone else.

He's quoted as saying that he's an "entrepreneur" - some kind of a doer - not like councillors who "sit around in a village office" - the ones who actually respect the democratic will of the majority of the people - and who dont jump because for self-interested "entrepreneurs" demand what they deem fit to make a buck - damn what the residents want. Truck it in. classic.

What's clear is that the Tofino residents (not just those in the foreshore developments) did not want unsupportable economic "growth" at any "price". It's not basically a "water shortage" - but a blatant refusal to respect by-law limits designed to sustain a residential and peak period polulation volume - and to maintain a quality of life that makes Tofino what it is.

When one camps at Greenpoint Provincial Campground, out at Long Beach - they happen to have a sign that goes out eventually - FULL - when the grounds have reached capacity. "Capacity" is informed by many things - space, the surrounding environment including plant and animal life, and basic physical resources. It also has to do with the judged quality of the campground users experience. That in essence are what bylaws are designed to promote.

I highly commend the Tofino coucil for standing its ground and respecting its electorate.

Great comment Mr. Bouris. Limiting growth and using resources wisely will ensure that the community has a good source of clean drinking water while maintaining the lifestyle that the residents, not the resort owners, desire.

But who OK'd the resort and accommodation construction.........?

RickW
I think there's been tension between the commercial interests and the council, the townspeople too for that matter, for quite some time - I don't know the details but I find the place rapidly changing from what it once was. The residents clearly want some brakes on growth and are trying to find ways to do that. The whole area from Long Beach up to and including Tofino should be part of the National Park so that some rational approach toward growth and development could be organized and planned - in my view. There are other complicating issues, including FN Reservations as well of course.

I understand there's been tension regading development, and one of the ways the residents thought they could control things was by not voting in "improvements" such as increased water capacity.

But what is the mechanism by which development takes place? Is it behind closed doors? Is there public notification? Judging from the grilling the mayor took today by residents, it does sound as though there is a faction that keeps an eye on this sort of thing.

The clips on TV of the business folks going postal about something interfering with their God-given right to make profits were quite interesting. Nice to see that 50G plunked down on the barrelhead can still get some fast results. That's how bizness iz done!

The businessmen and women at that little meeting they showed for a few seconds looked pretty chic to me. All Vancouver; not much Tofino - you know what they're all about.

RickW writes:

It is a good question - the issue points to the right hand keeing secrets from the left hand (no political pun intended)..well, then again..
I'm sure the Tofino council has done reasonably well to limit certain unsustainable practices.

A possible effective next Tofino council step might be to set strict limits of water volume available to commerical interests: A water budget. And no buying ones way out, or doing end runs like trucking water - because you can bet (as now) someone will try to truck water in and try to defeat (as I see it) the broader intent of the community bylaws - to maintain a sustainable Tofino community: environmentally, socially and economically balanced, moving forward.

..And as for anyone ever seen washing their car in the summer..

Absolutely Chris Bouris.

But you can be certain that the local business folks and the Vancouver sleeze balls who own much of the larger enterprises there will be out for the mayor and council's hide. They'll get a new council that's far more sympathetic to growth, development and greed in place as soon as they can unless the Local Tofino folks actually get busy and back 'their' represtatives and a more ethical and sustainable vision of growth and development. If there were a less business and commerce fixated government in Ottawa or Victoria it might be reasonable to expect some leadership from those counties. In this case, don't hold your breath.

In trying to stay neutral...(....always tough) but adding to the debate.

A columnist in the Interior wrote an interesting article about so-called water shortages...and how his town was now (then) into water meters for all users.

He found an interesting statistic whereby he obtained information ...aka facts...from the local gov't about the gross volume of water that(i) left the towns reservoir/water source "at the start of the pipe" ....and (ii) could be deemed actually used by the water users "at the OTHER end of the pipe"...

He found that there was an approx. 30-40% discrepancy of what water actually left the City water supply VERSUS what was actually used by the water consumers.

Why the huge discrepancy?

He found out, via due diligence, that the water was obviously " disappearing " along the way...ie the City water pipes were actually leaking.

Of course...this can create a water shortage...as the reservoirs etc. are drawn down at one end...much of the water is lost/ wasted along the way....and yet the end user is blamed. For every gallon that leaves their reservoir, almost 1/3 or more is lost in deilvery.

How much of this is going on elsewhere ...???

Of course, this gives Local Gov'ts etc. ....in their infinite wisdom.... the convenient political excuse to blame the end user victim ,...now force/impose meter water useage,....and ultimately cover up their own incompetence in not fixing much of the infrastructure "root" of the problem...

Personally, I don't see a lot of water use abuse by the end users....rarely do I see people sprinkling their lawns....etc....What I do see is gov't making up excuses to set people up for more cash grabs....

In our City, they had a massive program to encourage people to install water meters,...many didn't read the fine print of meter readers 4 times a year and a fee of $ 10 for a 10 second peak at the meter reading....plus the funny story of a person who used so little they were charged more due to some strange sliding scale...

As the saying goes....follow the money....and also the politics...and ultimately the REAL agenda...

While I am sure that some water is lost through leakage in nearly all water systems it still goes without saying that when the population increases then so does water consumption. Communities either have to find a new supply of water or find ways to get residents to use less water. One way to do that is through metres and increasing cost to more accurately represent the true value of water. Cheap water gives people the false impression that there is a never-ending supply. I am a strong believer in water metres because it encourages conservation and forces people to pay for what they use. Why should people who conserve water have to pay for the water used by "water-wasters"?

Chris Bouris:

I think I posted either in this thread or a similar one, where I thought that ANY development ought to include where the developer (from home owner to hotel owner to commercial owner) intends to get water and power from and where the developer intends to dispose of waste and sewage - all of which must be independent from or partially dependent on, existing infrastructure. If that was automatic in all proposals and/or permits, it wouldn't matter who was voted into council, or legislature, or House of Commons..........

I would give strong consideration to development accountabilty bylaws, as a platform - if it had real teeth with hard metrics.

"Fines" wouldn't probably work (there may well be interests willing to pay anyway and just keep going..like right now in Tofino) - but municipal supplies being turned off could (and needless to say, with ample prior notifications of usage levels nearing capacity being reached) - if an entity reached an agreed budget of municipal commodity use within the municipal jurisdiction.

There would be other complexities and corresponding issues..like rainfall variations, where a fixed percentage of use could make more sense. The latter would probably twig eveyrone into a more genuine "we're all in this together" awareness. That's more like a real playing field - where everyone is on the same team.

But the framework: "If that was automatic.." relies on a public vote, and lives or expires at the whim of each new administration - so "automatic" becomes a very temporal thing.

Community charters (arrived at by binding public plebicite - with longer cycles than any one administration between review) might be a better consideration for genuine tenure and real effectiveness of agreed upon community plans.

Without a broader overarching - and binding charter (needing a plebicite for change) - some political candidates might be tempted to just say one thing to one interest and another thing to another just to get elected - and then do what they will (primarily for the interests who funded them) once in office.

I thnk the seence of it al is, not to rely on centralized infrastructure. All that creates in the long run is a lever for someone to use against someone else. I suggested the above development caveat mainly as a means to make infrastructure more "up close and personal", instead of some nebulous "black hole" encompassing the full "6 degrees of separation" for the average citizen (pardon the metaphors). If people had to actually THINK about the streets they use, the water they drink, the power behind the switches, and the garbage and sewage they generate, perhaps they wold be less lilely to wontonly consume.......