Last login: Thursday, February 3, 2011
What's most important in the politics of water is the indifference toward wasted water by swimming pools that don't use solar covers (which reduce water evaporation by up to 95%). Just 200 pools without a solar cover can waste an entire city water tank of water, that's 3.5 million gallons. Fly over any city and just add up the pools.
So pool owners are getting a "free ride" on the backs of non-pool owners when it comes to rates going up because the waste raises the rates for everyone.
If for instance, Sacramento has over 50,000 pools, then Sacramento alone wastes 250 tanks (or over 2 billion gallons) of city water every year while. If the US has more than 8 million swimming pools, and we lower the average pool to 10,000 gallons to account for aboveground pools, then nationally 10,000 gal x 8,000,000 pools = 80 BILLION Gallons of water annually is being wasted nationwide.
My position as an inventor and water conservation activist has evolved not as a means to promote my invention that enables all freeform pools (70% of all pools) that can't use a deck reel (so means pool owners no longer have a political "excuse" saying covers are too hard to handle so now becomes a conservation mandate), but has been a discovery and a litmus test exposing "selective indifference" with an excuse that government cannot promote products or technologies.
So that excuse deserves more investigation as to why/how selective indiffence exists and why many WMD's take an attitude that they won't promote inexpensive solar covers to save water even though they can make a significant difference, especially since cover "pay for themselves" in lower water usage bills.
Fact is, pool builders can give away a free cover with a pool, and if people can't take the cover on/off easily it ends up as a ball of plastic in the corner of the yard. Once you are able to handle covers easily, it allows all pools to easily own a cover, and that becomes a "mandate" which before you could not enforce.
Mandate after mandate is imposed right now on equipment that must meet certain standards for pools (and other landscape conservation), but when it comes to inexpensive solar covers and Solar Rollers, it's hands off.
So the question is, what is the basis for this "selective indifference" about covering pools by those who have the power to make a difference? Should pool owners get a free ride on the backs of non-pool owners?
To summarize, the point is non-pool owners are unfairly subsidizing the wasted water by pool owners which is driving up the cost for water to those non-pool owners, and is inequitable and waste in general that is an unfair burden on the backs of non-pool owners. And this needs more attention in the news..
David Hoff - (NOTE: this post is not intending to promote any branded product but only the use of solar covers, no brands are mentioned)
February 3, 2011 at 2:05 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2016 KPBS Public Broadcasting