Comment by gamblor956 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gamblor956 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The water is recycled...due to the nature of the water in the Central Valley and its intended use, they can't just pump up the water from the ground all the time. The water needs to be treated to remove contaminants, then is constantly recycled to prevent algae growth.

The pool does use a ton of water when it gets (re)filled, but that's only a few times a year. Filling the entire pool uses about the same amount of water as the average California golf course uses in one day...

It’s also just localism all over again, except now it’s just straight up money that keep you out of the club instead of a more abstract idea of being a local.

The Surf Ranch is a high-end/test pool, and they've been pretty open about that.

Source: Got to visit the wave pool and talk to the employees during the Surf Ranch Pro in September.

EDIT: Follow-up. For point of comparison, while 300,000 gallons sounds like a lot, a "storm" in LA can drop 100 million of gallons of rainwater in 24 hours...LA's catchbasin system absorbed 22 billion gallons of water in the 4 month period between October 2016 and Jan 2017 (https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/01/23/68360/how-much-storm-wa...)

Recycled or not, it does evaporate. Its in a very dry area of the world.

> The Surf Ranch is a high-end/test pool, and they've been pretty open about that

My point isnt that its not cool, its more that its the anti-thesis of surfing as a whole.

Yes, but it does not waste water the way tried to make it sound.

surfing culture has changed a lot...kelly slater's participation led to a big part of the change. i watched him give interviews in a recent andy irons documentary touched by god and the man is a pure machine - there's nothing laid back or surfer-like about him at all. you respect him for his complete dedication to the craft and willpower to rise to the top of the surfing world no matter what, not for his carefree, anti-corporate, all-too human personality (personified by andy irons and his tragic relapses in/out of drugs while still competing at top surfing competitions)

guaranteed if you go out to your local beach and poll the surfers, 50%+ are well-paid workers in corporate america, otherwise they wouldn't have the means and time to buy all the gear needed and live close enough to the beach to surf as a hobby

the wave machine is perfect for practicing, showing off, and competing for a televised audience, which will bring in more sponsors and of course put more money/attention into the sport. the surf you know is mostly dead [1], which isn't necessarily a bad thing, everything changes

[1] https://surfisdead.com/

Surfing culture is still very much alive. It's just that with growth, it's no longer only the beach bums. I work pretty close to Venice, and have polled the surfers there before, and it's definitely no-where close to 50+% "well-paid workers in corporate america." It's closer to 25% corporate workers, about half people who live/breathe/work surfing, and the remainder an odd mix of everyone else.

i surf down by tower 26 occassionally and live near venice. old school beach bums are a dying breed. given the rent in venice/SM the new crowd of people moving in is all silicon beach residents/young professionals/influencers. maybe i'll see you down there some day ;)

If you have ever been to Lemoore, you would never call it a "very dry area of the world."

It's extremely humid there most of the year. It doesn't get much rainfall but it's not a dry place by any means, and its definitely not a desert.

The pool does use a ton of water when it gets (re)filled, but that's only a few times a year. Filling the entire pool uses about the same amount of water as the average California golf course uses in one day

So, if it's OK for a golf course to waste a bunch of water, then it's OK for everyone to waste a bunch of water.

Got it.

/Lives in the desert. Gets annoyed by people in water scarce environments making excuses for wasting water.

You are totally missing the point...

1) It's not a water-scarce environment. The Surf Ranch is surrounded by farms.

2) The Surf Ranch uses less water than its surrounding properties, and uses less water than an activity that most people in dry climates regard as a waste of time (i.e. golfing).

Like all pools, it takes a lot of water. They don't just dump the water into the system. They have tanks on-site to reclaim most of it, and a neighboring overflow/storage pool to minimize water wastage.

And this is just the beta pool, where they're trying to figure out the wave mechanics. Commercial pools like the one in Florida will have more advanced water reclamation/recycling systems.

1) It's not a water-scarce environment. The Surf Ranch is surrounded by farms.

Being surrounded by farms doesn't mean it's not water scarce. People have been irrigating desert for thousands of years.

The location is classified as BSk "semi-arid"†, just two notches above full-on desert.

The Surf Ranch uses less water than its surrounding properties

Re-read my comment above indicating that two wrongs don't make a right.

And this is just the beta pool, where they're trying to figure out the wave mechanics

What does it matter if it's a test pool, not? There are plenty of places with tons of water to spare in the same time zone.

† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemoore,_California#Climate

If you had followed up further on the climate classification, you would have seen that the classification is heavily based on the portion of the year during which rainfall is received, not just on the amount of rainfall received. Furthermore, a number of cities in otherwise extremely rainy locations (including Brazil and India) are also categorized as Bsk climates because they also receive most of their water in a limited portion of the year.

If you want to see an example of a wasteful activity in the CA Central Valley, check out https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-quietly-amasses-califor... (also posted on HN earlier today). The Surf Ranch replaced a farm, and over the year uses less water than the farm it replaced, so that counts as a net benefit.

uses less water than the farm it replaced, so that counts as a net benefit.

No, it doesn't. Less waste is still waste.

If you want to see an example of a wasteful activity in the CA Central Valley

Continued whataboutism.

You and I will just have to agree to disagree on the whole notion of two wrongs making a right.

I was more or less with you until this...

>>uses less water than the farm it replaced, so that counts as a net benefit.

>No, it doesn't. Less waste is still waste.

If waste is bad and this wastes less, that is a net improvement from a waste perspective regardless of whether or not you think it's good for the world.

Your viewpoints would lead to the total cessation of all environmentally-impacting activities. While it’s admirable that you hold these views to the maximum extreme possible, you will find little traction with others who do not feel as extremely as you. That doesn’t mean anyone is right or wrong, but you’ll find people reject your views solely due to the extremism with which they’re expressed. Consider whether that’s the desired outcome and, if not, consider adjusting your approach accordingly.

EDIT: If you have a personal story to tell about water waste, sharing that would go a long way towards helping the rest of us be able to connect with your position.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com