Discuss:
Discuss:
Now is the time to start that California Zen Garden business you've always been dreaming about.
http://www.techlume.com/wp-content/u...llpaper-hd.jpg
Where would the water come from? Isn't most of the water for SoCal already supplied via pipelines and canals?
The person who figures out a cheaper method of desalination will be a very rich person. As the sea levels rise, CA will have more water to deal with than they'll want.
USACOE was on this 60 years ago. If nothing else, the grandiosity is impressive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...Power_Alliance
If fusion power ever becomes reality, major ramp ups in desalination will probably follow very close behind. But, it will still be limited to municipal/industrial uses at best. Non-starter for agriculture.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmnpsplitter
Not likely going to ever happen.
Couple reasons:
The idea is repulsive to say the least to officials in the Great Lakes (it's been floated, hehe, before) it got laughed right out of the room.
Secondly, look how unsuccessful it's been in a much smaller proposal:
The State of Georgia is still in court to try and gain access to the Tennessee River, a mere 100 yards from the incorrectly drawn northern border (drawn by drunks using poor tools, and acknowledged as incorrect when compared to the grant metes and bounds of the 4th state). It's been fought for decades and Tennessee is no closer to sharing their water then they were 200 years ago. Good luck trying to sue anyone for their water on a scale as big as California's needs are.
Try that ocean next door, is desalinization really that unappealing/uneconomical in this drought?
Only major watershed I can see within reach that regularly sees a glut of overflow (that seems to be occurring more and more these past couple decades) would be the Red R. basin. All other major watersheds in the southern 2/3rds of NA would seem to be already under similar stresses to recharge and overall use. I'm sure Manitobans wouldn't mind the reduction in skeeters that would accompany the lowering of late spring/summer flows into Lk Winnipeg.
Pretty good synopsis of the current state of desal in CA: http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/...ater-problems/Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
Basically, there's no fucking way desal can even begin to put a dent into CA's agricultural water use.
We discussed this very matter in my office today. yes its a slow day, but what else can a bunch of nerds do a few hours before a holiday weekend.
Anyway, I thought perhaps buffalo and detroit could create a sort of keystone xl pipeline to california for farmers. My thought was the economics could be overcome by selling to the highest commercial bidders and dropping the pipelines into their area. leaving local water for non commercial use. They would become the dubai of the mid-west if it was feasible, and if the pipe leaked along the way, nobody would care about some mud and weeds growing underneath it vs oil. Just a pipe dream(pun intended)
That being said, California (and US by default) is in a real pickle. Our conversation started when we read about snowpack being at 5% of normal for April 1 which going back to 1950 it has never been below 25%. Truly scary. Desalination could work if Elon Musk could develop cold fusion I suppose or they allowed micro nuclear power plants to be built near the desalination in order to boil and pump billions of gallons of water. I've had the water on Aruba and its desalinated and it tastes very good but its Mucho $$$.
Well I sure hope they aren't watering lawns. Even before the drought that place was the desert.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
no we need more oil pipelines
duh
1. Power requirements for Desal would melt the power grid long before we got close to meeting our needs.
2. To physically meet the water consumption needs, we're talking about millions of CFS delivered. Pipelines cannot reasonably be constructed large enough to convey this amount of water in this age.
3. It's a drought. Droughts do pass in time. If it's climate change, the population will move.
4. Water managers in the state need to revise their storage rules. During the heavy rains in December, USBR and ACoE were dumping huge amounts of water out of all N Cal reservoirs due to their own rules and regulations. The Yolo causeway was flooded twice this winter to accommodate the massive water dumps. If that water would have been held, we would be in a much better position.
5. Oregon and Washington won't let us steal their water. Pretty sure we've tried before, so now we just export our population to them.
See my Great Lakes comment above. You're not just dealing with a municipality selling water, you have 8 states and a whole other country that has rights and interests in that water older than California and certainly older than this current crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by ncskier
Power, manufacturing, shipping, fishing, local water supply, environmental... None of these very powerful groups are going to give up a drop of the GL.
More water is used in almond production than is used by all the residents and businesses of San Francisco and Los Angeles combined.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/almon...#ixzz3WBglBj90
The reason WA will not allow its water to be diverted, we have our own AG/power to protect, The Columbia River. But, at max usage AG only draws 3% of the total flow, and most of that is returned down stream that will be ran thru dams for power sales to CA. 9 months out of the year our dams are spilling water as reservoirs are filled, June, July, August during heavy use periods, (AG and power), they are still spilling excess water to supply salmon runs and no new water can be withdrawn without finding new water for fish. The ratio....for every foot of water withdrawn, 3 needs to be put back for fish. No one will allow new storage to be built so.....CA will dry up until people reassess their needs.
Pipelines just extend the tragedy of the commons to a larger commons.
The water "shortage" in California is artificial. Central Valley farmers are accustomed to using a shitload of artificially cheap water that is subsidized by everyone else in the state and in the country. Sure, we all get something back for those subsidies, who doesn't love cheap produce? But it's the artificially cheap water prices that do things like create a rice industry in the Sacramento Valley that gets half the precip of everywhere else in the world that grows large rice crops, or create a melon industry (basically farming flavored water) in Fresno, or grow strawberries and lettuce in Salinas.
Far better to grow dryland crops in the drylands, than to continue to destroy ecosystems with new water projects. It's as if nobody learned a damned thing from Mono Lake, Glen Canyon, or the lower Colorado.
California can barely pay its bills right now. How will they afford that? Also if the agricultural part of California loses their water I imagine it would further devastate Californias revenue base. Building a bullet train from LA to San Fran ( via Fresno) while pretty cool is completely irresponsible in the current situation they are faced with. Hopefully the drought ends for a few years to buy some time but it doesn't look good.
What about what SD is doing?Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
San Diego agrees to turn recycled wastewater into drinking water
And Almond groves are one of the causes of bee colony collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
There really aren't any significant, economically viable unexploited water resources available for California, including desalinization, leaving only increased efficiency and re-use. Domestic effluent recycling is the more achievable in the near term, industrial not too far behind, but agricultural will be the big challenge.
Water is for fighting and whiskey is for drinking.
Senior water rights versus junior water rights, chaining water diversion gates, power production, fish production, the list goes on and on for the fine people of the Lost River valley and their dealings with the geology of the Snake River plain.
Yes, I am well aware that whiskey production uses a lot of water, but what doesn't.
It is completely needing to change the mindset that water is a infinite resource.
How about we start with addressing the usage?
Hmm, let's see here. Let's take a vastly arid state and add tons of people, lots of golf courses (see Palm Desert, Palm Springs, etc.), and buttloads of ag in areas where nothing should grow. YEAH! That sounds like a GREAT idea. :rolleyes2
I say let 'em dry out a bit until they finally make the proper adjustments to make themselves at least SOMEWHAT sustainable. I'd say the population there should decline, but they've been exporting people by the millions and they still somehow keep growing.
Like I said - time to start that Zen Garden business:Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinFromSA
‘The Era Of The Lawn In The West Is Over’ As Drought-Weary Cities Urge Residents To Save Water
This, generally. Though I do understand the State Board issued some emergency orders this winter that allowed the Bureau to fill San Luis during the two atmospheric river events we had, so that was nice at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
Plus this.Quote:
Originally Posted by PB
This strikes me as right:
http://onthepublicrecord.org/2015/03...n-by-say-2040/
http://onthepublicrecord.org/2015/03...of-production/
Carry on... (Also, Ski to Be, we have a budget surplus these days. Get your shit straight.)
I dont know why the focus is on almonds. yes they use 10% of California's Ag water-> but alfalfa uses up 15% of the states ag water. most of this alfalfa gets shipped to china. In the point of harm to the industry-> replanting almond trees then waiting for them to mature would take 15-20 years to get back to current production if they were to be neglected. Alfalfa would simply need to be replanted.
Edit- also when San Diego's desal plant gets going in 2017 it will provide 7% of the counties water. Thats a start....
Maybe almonds seem somewhat more frivolous to people, like a snack, while alfalfa all people know is it's a regular farm crop and animals eat it so it seems more core/important.
Bomb Canada, divert the Fraser River, profit.
Pricing, pricing, pricing. The econ really is that simple. Yes, ag will take it...big time. So what? Are we really going to defend the model that's killing the West?
In other news, these guys are doing neat stuff: http://waterfx.co/news/press-releases/
Edit: ok, so there's lot's killing the West...
It's funny how most "serious' responses are so heavily seasoned with snot.
I've had people tell me this is not only a great idea (running a pipe from the Columbia River to Sandy Bagel) but convey that haughty incredulity that it hasn't been done or couldn't be seen as reasonable by even the most slow people.
While agriculture may go elsewhere, I can't see the population centers moving. Even if most areas had to rely on 100% desalination, the cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the value of the real estate and infrastructure that is already in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
"Neat" is an apt description for a system that produces a whopping 8 gpm.Quote:
Originally Posted by BraddA
Totally achievable and not horrifically expensive, however if your local wastewater treatment plant eventually discharges into a surface water body, it is getting picked up and turned into drinking water somewhere else downstream. There are two main issues though--public perception is tough to break and only about 30-40% of water used in cities actually makes it back to the sewage plant. The quantity isn't there to dent this.Quote:
Originally Posted by KQ
Further, ag is the main water consumer in the state. The Farm lobby is why there's so much noise about this drought. The poor farmers of the valley are either forced to drill more wells (and further accelerating the subsidence issues in the valley) or letting their fields go fallow. The recent almond boom in the market (almond milk, almond flour, almond butter, etc.) has triggered the valley farmers to plant more almond fields which are exceptionally water intensive, as they water their fields by flooding them. Yes, flooding them. In 100 degree dry heat. Super effective use of water.
Alfalfa is another issue as it is just a market exploit due to the trade imbalance with China. Loading up empty containers going to Bejing is cheaper than shipping to Portland at the moment.
As for high speed rail, you have a better idea of how to move tens of thousands of people inbetween cities every day for less money? Please say hyperloop. I love it when morons talk about the hyperloop and they actually believe Musk's idea without actually having read his proposal, or having any concept of basic engineering principles and construction costs.
Mother Jones ran a recent article in which an expert figured that it takes >1 gallon of water to grow each CA almond. FreakyQuote:
Originally Posted by Mazderati
For those who haven't read it, pick up a copy of Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water, a remarkable and informative book, as good as non-fiction gets, will educate the reader about how the fuck we got where we are.
oops i should hit refresh- this was in response to Ice's first post on this page...
well in that sense what about horses. There are 10 million horses in the US and the common figure thrown around that each horse takes up 7 acres of farmland in pasture and growing feed. Im sure the water footprint of a horse is not small.
Just remember son, that the west wasn't won on mountainbikes.Quote:
Originally Posted by steepconcrete
i recall a figure-> something like 26 million draft animals at the peak in 1915 and that the move to mechanical tractors freed around 160 million acres of farmland and pasture that was used to feed them.
Pipes would probably work better at transporting water than on horseback?Quote:
Originally Posted by steepconcrete
John Wayne rode tractors?
Hard to believe that people can't understand "how the fuck we got where we are" but as a species humans can be pretty stump dump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Steve