Water-The Third Rail Part XXX Creating Water

Common love language goes something like this: Two people come together,
there is a spark and bingo, as marriage vows go, the two become one, but
they still have their own identities. So why not duplicate this in the
physical world to make water?

A water molecule is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, and the two exist
separately on earth, so why not just combine them to make water? Just as our
lovers require a spark, so do the elements oxygen and hydrogen (both of
which are shy) need a spark to combine them. The term for this conjoining is
called an explosion. Water is produced, along with other products of
combustion. So far the brightest minds have not figured out how to invent a
continuous, safe process combining oxygen and hydrogen to make water without
serious side effects. So with California drying up to a prune, our leaders
plan on making “new water” by potable recycling. Wrong!

We have had a succession of warnings about how series the drought is, and
how it is likely to continue, but judging from the recent water bond
legislation signed into law by Governor Brown, our leadership is tone deaf.
They all marched up to the water summit and marched back down, beating their
collective chests they had finally conquered partisanship and agreed on a
water bond issue for $7.5 billion dollars. Does it address the current
drought? No it doesn’t. The bulk of the money goes for more storage. Smoke
and mirrors are the primary tools of politicians.

Marie Waldon (R) 75th Assembly District is no exception. Careful reading of
her piece in the 8/22/2014 UT San Diego about the $7.5 billion water bond to
come before the voters in November tells us San Diego will see little or
nothing of the grants to be doled out by state bureaucrats if the bond issue
passes. And worst of all, even if by sheer luck a few dollars dribble south,
there is nothing in the legislation to address the current drought. Because
the title will include “Water” voters may pass it. Pay close attention to
the words “competing”, “compete”, “eligible for funding” and “potential for
funding” throughout the article. She makes much of the added funds for
storage. This may have been good legislation years ago, but it is useless
for this unending three year drought. Lake Mead and Folsom Dam (here in CA)
and other local water storage reservoirs are at historic lows.

She concludes her self-serving editorial with, “In the end, I believe this
water bond measure will help attain a reliable water supply for millions of
Californians for generations to come.” Pure hogwash! The water bond does
nothing to change the fact that eighty percent of our water is imported from
reduced allotments from the State Water Project, and exacerbated by flows in
the Colorado River that are under a death watch by the water agencies.

Voting no on this water bond will be characterized by the proponents as
voting against God, love and motherhood. After all, it’s for WATER! No
problem, we’ll just get those two shy lovers, oxygen and hydrogen together
and spark up a romance. NOT! What we can do is get the Sacramento
knuckleheads to create water with potable recycling and desalination in
sufficient quantities to drop our reliance on imported water. The best way
to do that is to vote no on the water bond in November, to send them
marching back up to the water summit to create water to fill the reservoirs we
already have.

Milt Burgess