01-11-2010, 01:27 PM
Two things stand out for me. First, it seems there is a case of mission creep going on here. The spigots were put in to take care of basic needs in emergencies but people are now demanding that they serve a greatly expanded role, one which I must concur is not entirely fair if some people are demanding agricultural water for free while others pay for it monthly.
The other more significant issue is that this is really no way for families to be providing themselves with water. It is like a kind of welfare and one that really isn't adequate. There is much talk in Puna circles about sustainability. Well, almost 15 feet of water falls from the sky over the course of the year in much of puna and a lot of the time catchment systems averaging 10,000 gallons in size are overflowing. So, apparently 10,000 gallons is not enough storage so how about doubling that? If done at initial construction the cost won't be double. The extra 10,000 gallons should see even a good sized family through a month of drought. If not then that family has fundamental underlying problems that probably keep them dependent on others. I do not believe that a significant amount of agriculture is actually supplied by these roadside spigots and if it is that is no way to run a farm.
The very first step in developing a sustainable lifestyle in an area that gets over 10 feet of rain a year should be to put in sufficient catchment and storage capacity. It may be that the county just wants to save money, but the argument that the average Puna household is dependent on such a tenuous supply is tragic.
The other more significant issue is that this is really no way for families to be providing themselves with water. It is like a kind of welfare and one that really isn't adequate. There is much talk in Puna circles about sustainability. Well, almost 15 feet of water falls from the sky over the course of the year in much of puna and a lot of the time catchment systems averaging 10,000 gallons in size are overflowing. So, apparently 10,000 gallons is not enough storage so how about doubling that? If done at initial construction the cost won't be double. The extra 10,000 gallons should see even a good sized family through a month of drought. If not then that family has fundamental underlying problems that probably keep them dependent on others. I do not believe that a significant amount of agriculture is actually supplied by these roadside spigots and if it is that is no way to run a farm.
The very first step in developing a sustainable lifestyle in an area that gets over 10 feet of rain a year should be to put in sufficient catchment and storage capacity. It may be that the county just wants to save money, but the argument that the average Puna household is dependent on such a tenuous supply is tragic.