Another angle on this is why are we scrutinizing only where 10% of California's water usage is, while ignoring 90% (farms)? Why do California's farmers have the right to the majority of the water while paying next to nothing for that water as compared to the rates the other users of water pay?
Never mind that all the wildlife that urinates/defecates in it, the dead animals in it, etc., which nobody minds.
Urine is generally sterile, it's actually an accepted first aid practice to urinate on a bandage or create a urine paste to treat a wound in the field in emergency conditions.
You can't make this stuff up. Civil engineers are amazing.
Edit: also, as per my other comment, urine, in the voided stream, is not sterile, and even if it were, certainly contains all the building blocks for bacterial growth.
(1) https://encrypted.google.com/maps/place/Johnson+County+Waste...
That said, inland cities all recycle water. And they generally return water into the rivers that is cleaner than what they took out.
Are the farmers paying so much less for treated, potable tap water delivered through municipal water mains? I think you'll find the cost of the water itself is pretty small. You may find that treating it, transporting it, and distributing it pretreated to all those people are the real economic costs even during most stages of a drought.
Wait until people learn that they air they breathe has likely already been breathed by someone else...
Unsanitary isn't really the problem. Laden with organically active toxins is the problem.
We don't have a good way of dealing with most toxins other than simply diluting them and letting nature break them down.
This is why treatment plants take water from rivers and pump treated water back into the river rather than immediately recycling outflow back to inflow.
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/07/16/california-drought-san...
You can