One of Our San Diego Neighbors Uses Almost 38,000 Gallons of Water a Day

Despite receiving normal rainfall in the last year or so, we here in southern California have been trying to do our part to save water in a state that is experiencing one of the worst droughts in our history. So it is disheartening to read about one of our neighbors in Rancho Santa Fe who is using 13.8 million gallons of water a year.

            That comes out to almost 38,000 gallons of water a day. Almost 38,000 gallons a day! As our local paper, the Union-Tribune illustrates, that is enough water to supply the water needs of 110 single-family homes. The paper is leaving the name of the owner of the property unpublished.

            I can hear the argument, “Well, he pays for that water, so what is wrong with that?”

What could possibly be wrong with one southern California homeowner using almost 38,000 gallons of water a day?

The problem is that everybody else is paying for that water as well. We San Diegans are facing water rate increases, as much as 17 percent. Part of that increase would go to pay for the new water desalination plant in Carlsbad and the indirect potable reuse program, a plant and a program that would be unnecessary were it not for some folks using an enormous amount of water.

            The price paid by everybody else doesn’t stop there. We use pumps to bring water here from the Colorado River and the Sacramento River Delta, which uses energy. It is estimated that 20 percent of the energy used in California is to move water from one place to another. It also takes energy to desalinate water. That energy use translates into climate change.

            Maybe I shouldn’t grouse so much. The good news is that our neighbor has reduced his consumption of water down from last year’s 31.7 million gallons. I guess I should be thankful for that.

            How about you? What do you think when you read a story like this? Does it discourage you from conserving? Do you think there should be an upper limit on how much water one person or household can consume?

Global Warming Brings Air Conditioning to San Diego Schools

Global warming is melting glaciers and raising the level of the oceans, phenomena that, unless you live in the mountains or along a coast, may be obscured to you. Well, as in this story, climate change is coming home, or at least to school, here in San Diego.

            Responding to the rising temperatures in their classrooms, the San Diego Unified School District announced that it is installing air conditioning in the district’s schools. Parents and teachers complained that at the beginning of this school year temperatures in the 90s afflicted classrooms for several days. Children struggled to learn in the oppressive heat, and some fainted or fell ill.

            San Diego natives and folks who have lived here a long time have bragged that the weather here is so pleasant that air conditioning is never needed, even during the months of July and August when much of the rest of the country is sweltering. I’ve lived here for decades and have never lived in a house with air conditioning or an air conditioner.

            The obvious irony here is that the air conditioning will use electricity, the production of which is one of the drivers of climate change. The proposed program includes the installation of solar panels and thus promises to be carbon neutral. But the fact remains that the now needed air conditioning will be using electricity from those solar panels that could have been used for something else had we not been raising the thermostat on the planet with all the CO2 we’re throwing up in the air.

            And to those who have complained that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will adversely affect our economy, installing all that air conditioning in all to all those schools in San Diego will cost $204 million. That is $204 million in taxes. And all of it to be taxed and spent on something that would not have been needed if we had started reducing emissions when we first knew of the connection between burning fossil fuels and a warmer planet.

            Are you a San Diego schoolteacher? A parent? Student? Have you suffered through sweltering classrooms? As a taxpayer, what do you think?

Hire Me. I Promise I Won't Do a Good Job!

I interviewed recently for a job at one of San Diego’s largest employers. A company that produces products with electronic components, they had a position open that would make their products less harmful to the environment.

            Anymore, just about every electronic device that is slightly more sophisticated than a two-slice toaster has complicated electronic components with integrated circuit boards. These boards work with ever so tiny chips, processors, and resistors. Some of the soldering holding these components onto the boards can contain lead. And part of what allows these items to be ever so tiny is their use of metals like cadmium and mercury. These metals are toxic. Lead is well known to cause nerve and kidney damage. Cadmium and mercury can damage the kidneys and other organs. Sometimes exposure leads to death.

            For these reasons there has been a push to restrict the use of these metals in electronic components. Europe, Korea, China, and California all have RoHS standards (pronounced row hoss), which stands for Restriction of Hazardous Substances. By the RoHS laws of these governing bodies electronic devices are to have reductions or eliminations of these harmful metals.

I had a phone interview with this manufacturer for a position that would help them achieve RoHS compliance. While I was on the line with my potential new boss, I emphasized the knowledge I had of these metals, how they can enter the water supply and make people sick, how they can persist in soils. I also emphasized that through my own initiative I had started the RoHS program at my previous employer and how I believed that the RoHS program will lead to better health and safety. I thought that I had made the case that I had the knowledge and experience for this job. I thought that I had shown that I had the enthusiasm to do the work that would make me practically a shoo-in for this company that touts its green credentials.

            Then there was a silence on the end of the line. I knew that I had said something wrong. Did I say something that did not quite agree with what was on my resume? Did I get some of the facts wrong about the RoHS program?

“We’re only doing this because we have to,” my interviewer said. My enthusiasm was unwanted.

So I didn’t have the job. I kept the gal on the line a little while longer. She admitted that she didn’t like her job and that the company overworked its employees. I thanked her for her time and said goodbye.

It is not painting with too broad a brush to assume that the attitude of my interviewer – that mitigating our assault on the environment is not a worthwhile endeavor and only to be undertaken under the duress of legislation – is the dominant attitude of the corporate world. I had thought that, like any other job, they would be hiring somebody who had some enthusiasm for his work, who wanted to do his job well. I was wrong. As I said before, this company touts its green credentials, but the person who heads up this company’s environmental program has no training or background in environmentalism. I imagine that they consider their environmental program to be part of their PR campaign, making them look good to the folks who buy their products.

I should be unsurprised. From the time that I started a paper recycling program when I worked for a bank to the RoHS program at the last manufacturer I worked for, management and upper management were unhelpful and sometimes outright hostile to the efforts I made.

What does this mean? Companies will continue to pollute and ravage the environment. The only thing restricting them from causing more harm are good environmental laws and the enforcement of those laws. They will not comply otherwise. It also means that folks like me, people who have a great concern and are willing to work for the environment, are persona non grata to large employers. There will be no change from within in the corporate world. Environmentalists do not have a place at their table. And we should be justifiably wary any time a company burnishes its green credentials.