ProtoPolyAss: What About Building Water Pipelines To CA and the SW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Since you admit that the problem you are complaining about doesn't actually exist, I'm not really sure what your point is.

---

My point is that even if our country's natural population growth is negative, we could continue to slow population growth further (and thus our insatiable demand for water and other resources) if people would stop having excessive amounts of children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

If not for immigration the population of the US would be declining. Same goes for pretty much every developed nation.

---

The total fertility rate in the US is 1.9 If immigration stopped today, the decline in pop would be insignificant. Plus, water and food are global, and the globe is overpopulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisteoff

The total fertility rate in the US is 1.9 If immigration stopped today, the decline in pop would be insignificant. Plus, water and food are global, and the globe is overpopulated.

---

Ask Japan how great a shrinking population is.

Japan's problem is demographic, not total population. Everyone is old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gravitylover

Since I was a little kid I've had this idea of a continent wide water delivery system. It could be the largest public works project in the history of mankind kinda thing. I'm talking pipes into the craziest places for water intake and then into every existing public system and additional small systems that would eventually get built to move water to places that are well only now.

It seems that there is always somewhere it's raining and there are always places just letting their fresh water run away because it's beyond their needs and there is no way to store it and no system to move it to where it is needed. I'm not talking about tapping the Great Lakes although they should be part of the larger system.

---

Seems like a great idea. Employment while its being built and more water once its done. Except, Mullholland pretty much did that already (smaller scale system). That's part of what created the current situation. We can either let history keep repeating itself on ever larger scales or we can try something new. I bet people will adapt in some potentially cool ways if they're given a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

Ask Japan how great a shrinking population is.

---

Is it because they aren't growing or because their population density is so high?

It's a huge drag on their economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stalefish3169

My point is that even if our country's natural population growth is negative, we could continue to slow population growth further (and thus our insatiable demand for water and other resources) if people would stop having excessive amounts of children.

---

A slowly declining population is preferable to a rapidly declining population for numerous reasons. The super breeders are statistical outliers anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisteoff

The total fertility rate in the US is 1.9 If immigration stopped today, the decline in pop would be insignificant.

---

Not in the long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisteoff

Plus, water and food are global, and the globe is overpopulated.

---

Water is local or regional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisteoff

Japan's problem is demographic, not total population. Everyone is old.

---

Unless you start culling the old people, an aging population has to precede population decline. The faster the fertility rate declines the more top-heavy the demographics get during the transition. A TFR only a little below replacement is far preferable to a TFR way below replacement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

What state would that be? Any other states out there extend the public trust doctrine to groundwater?: http://legal-planet.org/2014/07/21/g...ifornia-style/ http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/env...ater-case.html

---

I don't follow CA law closely, certainly not anymore, but the prior appropriation doctrine should apply to tributary GW, end of story. I do not believe it does in CA, at least it didn't. The public trust doctrine is entirely different, as many streams are not "navigable" or tributary to a nearby navigable waterway.

And Arizona for one still does not recognize the connection; the PA doctrine does not preclude the pumping of tributary groundwater except in certain specialized zones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theshredder

Is it because they aren't growing or because their population density is so high?

---

Aren't growing. Total pop in decline due to the majority of people being beyond their reproductive years. And almost no immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

It's a huge drag on their economy.

---

True, but it's partly because so many are getting to be beyond their productive years. Their population is still larger today than it was during the cars and electronics boom of the 70s and 80s.

Also, China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisteoff

Aren't growing. Total pop in decline due to the majority of people being beyond their reproductive years. And almost no immigration.

---

I recently looked at this. Although the rate of growth has slowed, U.S. population continues on a modest growth trend. Overall annual (net) growth rate is around 0.8, as follows: Birth rate is around 0.14. Death rate is around 0.08. Population growth rate via immigration is around 0.04. Something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

A slowly declining population is preferable to a rapidly declining population for numerous reasons. The super breeders are statistical outliers anyway.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Not in the long term.

---

Very long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Water is local or regional.

---

Water rights are local.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Unless you start culling the old people, an aging population has to precede population decline. The faster the fertility rate declines the more top-heavy the demographics get during the transition. A TFR only a little below replacement is far preferable to a TFR way below replacement.

---

Soylent green is people!

I wasn't trying to derail this thread into polyass territory, I just agreed with whoever brought population growth up. Rational discussion about resources needs to address consumption, and by logical extension, the number of consumers - yet any talk of people's god-given-right to procreate is a third rail issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Steve

I recently looked at this. Although the rate of growth has slowed, U.S. population continues on a modest growth trend. Overall annual (net) growth rate is around 0.8, as follows: Birth rate is around 0.14. Death rate is around 0.08. Population growth rate via immigration is around 0.04. Something like that.

---

I was replying to someone who was talking about Japan.

Oh, okay. Right, Japan's population/age distribution curve is whacky. More Japanese are 80 y.o. than 5 y.o.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Steve

I recently looked at this. Although the rate of growth has slowed, U.S. population continues on a modest growth trend. Overall annual (net) growth rate is around 0.8, as follows: Birth rate is around 0.14. Death rate is around 0.08. Population growth rate via immigration is around 0.04. Something like that.

---

Interesting. Certainly not the OMG build a wall crisis its purported to be in certain circles (of course there are lots of people who aren't counted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

Yup, total public perception issue. While it takes them 1 million gallons to fill their pools for an entire summer, I'll dump that much on bare soil in a week every single week for two years to keep dust down on the construction site I'm heading to in 2016, and get thrown in jail if I don't do it.

People can't quantify volumes larger than what they can carry.

---

dont you use total grey water for this? non potable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skidog

dont you use total grey water for this? non potable?

---

Very few municipalities have seperate systems between true non-potable (purple pipe) recycled water, fire water specific lines, and the public water supply. The difference between a non-potable supply and potable can be as minor as a backflow preventor. Most of the time we're pulling off of fire hydrants, which due to the lack of a backflow preventor, are non-potable sources. Those fire hydrants are connected to the same pipe that feeds your home, which all comes out of your local freshwater treatment plant or ground well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I don't follow CA law closely, certainly not anymore, but the prior appropriation doctrine should apply to tributary GW, end of story. I do not believe it does in CA, at least it didn't. The public trust doctrine is entirely different, as many streams are not "navigable" or tributary to a nearby navigable waterway.

And Arizona for one still does not recognize the connection; the PA doctrine does not preclude the pumping of tributary groundwater except in certain specialized zones.

---

CA law recognizes GW as hydrologically connected to surface water if the GW flows in "known and definite channels." (See, e.g., http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/...9/wrd1645.pdf) The PT doctrine in GW is an extension of that rule.

GW in isolated basins where it's hard to make the connection is governed by overlying rights. You own land, you can pump as much as you want for use on your land (though not for export). That applies until your neighbor's well goes dry and then he sues you and all your other neighbors for a basin adjudication. And then, for a basin adjudication to be done properly, the Court has to get in rem jurisdiction over every single piece of overlying property. Otherwise, some dude can come back years later and pump as much as he wants because his land wasn't subject to the adjudication, and the whole process starts over again.

In Barstow v. Mojave, the Court invalidated an adjudication where all parties did not agree to a stipulated judgment and the lower court tried to force them into it:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr
http://www.downeybrand.com/Resources...e-Water-Agency
http://www.mojavewater.org/history.html
http://www.watereducation.org/wester...basin-decision

But then, to do it the right way, it took the Court in the Antelope Valley Adjudication something like 15 years to get jurisdiction over all of the required property:
http://mavensnotebook.com/2014/12/16...-adjudication/ (That number is +-a year or so because I'm going from recollection from hearing the court-appointed special master speak at a symposium 2-3 years ago. The case study says 14 years.)

Edit: BTW, the problem with GW in CA has been that, in the huge basins, nobody has wanted to submit to an adjudication so they just keep digging deeper wells. It's not like groundwater statewide has been totally unregulated, only mostly, because the biggest basins don't have water that flows in "known and definite channels." And we know how that's gone: http://www.latimes.com/science/scien...002-story.html That's going to change with the new regs that went into effect. Hopefully sooner than the timetable set by current statute.

Incidentally, according to NASA GRACE, the Ogallala is being depleted at 4x the rate of the CA Central Valley. It's bigger, but it's also (arguably) a bigger problem too: http://tinyurl.com/lsj8tkh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

I <3 the talk of cutting the water subsidy for CA farmers. You know what happens when you cut that? Produce and meat prices rise as the farmers costs rise, cause big ag isn't going to take it in the butt like that. More people go hungry and on food stamps. Americans going hungry or eating a further nutritionally deficient diet and increasing obesity. The moral is, someone is GOING to be subsidized; we just need to choose who it will be. In general, people are happier feeling like they are self sustaining (i.e. NOT on welfare) so giving the corporations the subsidy makes people happier.

We've already seen this happening from the Texas drought and the rising cost of beef. Ground beef has gone from $2/lb to $4/lb around here over the last 2-3 years.
.

---

I know, but come on, they are rolling in cheap water (relative to the cost). They scream that their way of life will cease to exist if there is any disruption in their cheap water via pricing changes, flow changes for fish, etc. Some reasonable changes via pricing or regulation to drive them towards more efficient water use seems prudent. I'm not saying full price, something in between. And of course they aren't the only users of water.

Another interesting read on this topic and freshwater in general is:

The Ripple Effect by Alex Prud'homme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by char

I know, but come on, they are rolling in cheap water (relative to the cost). They scream that their way of life will cease to exist if there is any disruption in their cheap water via pricing changes, flow changes for fish, etc. Some reasonable changes via pricing or regulation to drive them towards more efficient water use seems prudent. I'm not saying full price, something in between. And of course they aren't the only users of water.

Another interesting read on this topic and freshwater in general is:

The Ripple Effect by Alex Prud'homme

---

It would be an appropriate time to require mandatory drip systems on all crops and ban field flooding. Beyond that, the market will correct itself at this time, as the costs for farmers to pump water to feed this year's crop is significantly higher than buying water so investing in water saving techniques is a good deal for them at the moment. This was how many vineyards changed to drip back in the 80's during that drought.

As for the 'farming way of life ceasing to be' I've never bought that. They exist in an inelastic supply and demand economy, just like fuel. People simply must have food and will pay any price for it. Only their own competition controls the price, not the consumer.

^^^ Go back and check those On The Public Record blog links I posted. I think he/she has got it right. Really all of his/her posts back to February 25 are very salient: http://onthepublicrecord.org/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Incidentally, according to NASA GRACE, the Ogallala is being depleted at 4x the rate of the CA Central Valley. It's bigger, but it's also (arguably) a bigger problem too: http://tinyurl.com/lsj8tkh

---

the problem with the Ogallala is that it is multi-state, and there is no interstate compact.

and FTR, Colorado treats its non-hydrologically connected GW basins in a stupid and short-sighted manner. and for the multi-state ones, it's a race to the bottom, literally.

The 1%'ers in San Diego use an average of 584 gallons of water per day, nearly five times the average for coastal Southern California. It is crazy purple pipe is not required for all irrigation in new developments. Also crazy that they don't find away to get the recycled water to local agriculture, golf courses, and very rich. Seems like a better option than drinking our own waste or spending billions on new projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJSapp

It would be an appropriate time to require mandatory drip systems on all crops and ban field flooding.

---

I've heard that many of the valleys districts are older open systems that require quite a large investment to upgrade. One good thing out of all this is that it will strongly drive up incentive to upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 406

The 1%'ers in San Diego use an average of 584 gallons of water per day, nearly five times the average for coastal Southern California. It is crazy purple pipe is not required for all irrigation in new developments. Also crazy that they don't find away to get the recycled water to local agriculture, golf courses, and very rich. Seems like a better option than drinking our own waste or spending billions on new projects.

---

Running purple pipe would be one of those projects that would end up costing billions, once you include the costs of upgrading the wastewater plants to produce effluent that is clean enough to put into a purple pipe. Then you have to pump it all the way across metro SD which won't be cheap either. Those 1% types don't exactly live near the sewage treatment plant.