California's Water Crisis
- Thread starter { Emilia }
- Start date
5 pages. Didn't read.
Didn't the Dutch just invent some kind of new desalination process that's much more economical?
Didn't the Dutch just invent some kind of new desalination process that's much more economical?
This winter has been unusually mild, the deep snow pack in the mountains simply isn't there this year. So come August and September we're likely to be short of water ourselves.
It occurs to me that if (hindsight) California had spent the last few decades absolutely filling their state with water reservoirs, this current problem would at least be minimized.
As I mentioned previously, I think pipelines from areas prone to flooding are a good idea. Here is a good example where diverting the water to the west might be a good idea. If not as far as California, perhaps Nevada or Utah could be viable alternatives. Both Lakes Mead and Powell are in need of water as well. It should start somewhere. Here might be a good place to start:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/26/vortex-lake-texoma-pkg-orig.cnn
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/26/vortex-lake-texoma-pkg-orig.cnn
^Moving water from Midwest or the East to the West would be incredibly expensive and polluting. This article is about problems on the Colorado River, but near the end it briefly discusses the Navajo Generating Station and its effects. This is a large coal-fired power plant (22,000 tons of coal per year; the third largest CO2 emitter in the country) in Arizona that exists primarily to provide energy to pump water from Lake Havasu to farms in Arizona. It moves about 10% of the Colorado River 336 miles and up 3000 feet. What you're suggesting is moving much more water than that over a distance of at least 1000-1500 miles and over the Rocky Mountains at a minimum. In short, that's a bad idea.
Moving water down the coast from the mouth of the Columbia to California might be feasible, but that would still be expensive very difficult politically and environmentally.
Moving water down the coast from the mouth of the Columbia to California might be feasible, but that would still be expensive very difficult politically and environmentally.
I've been looking through some of my old National Geographics lately. There are several articles throughout the 1970's mentioning that California must get going on desalinization right away to prevent a crisis in the future. Well, it's now the future and there's a crisis. It's not like they weren't told.
Of course, there are also many articles about the coming Ice Age.
Of course, there are also many articles about the coming Ice Age.
So... he's an asshole about guns *and* water now, apparently:
Tom Selleck drought shamed, accused of stealing truckloads of hydrant water
Tom Selleck drought shamed, accused of stealing truckloads of hydrant water
I had a talk with someone about that. The problem with desalinization plants in California is that they require a lot of power. Power the state's power grid cannot really handle. At least not without additional power plants first.
Meaning, the state needs more power so it can run plants for more water. The logical power source would be nuclear, but by the 1980s that basically wasn't happening. Anything else would have been expensive to operate, since you can't put a hydroelectric plant just anyplace, and even with all the wind farms we have in this state, it wouldn't be enough. Solar probably wouldn't be enough back then. The voters I guess didn't want more power plant (oil burning probably), thus desalinization plants were not possible in the numbers needed.
Sad news, if true:
Unconfirmed picture of water being thiefed from the Estate of Johnathan Quayle Higgins III, Baron of Perth, Major-Domo to Robin Masters
Believe it, farmkid, when the situation gets dire enough, cost and pollution will be far down the Priority/Feasability List. 3/$1 Grapefruit is too important! They really should gets serious with this part of the world (I am in Middle East, currently) and partner and learn. These guys know how to get salt out of water, sure bet. I know the Sheikhs here have sincerely offered on numerous occasions, but, Politics (and Macroaggression, me thinks! )
Last Year, but very interesting and informative!
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/desalination-boom-california-drought-reverse-osmosis
The problem with droughts is not a resource problem, or a distribution problem; it's a political/economic/environmental problem. Not only do you have turf battles going on between jurisdictions, but you have the costs in upgrading a rather old water distribution system. Coupled that with the environmentalists religious need to preserve the environment, you have this crisis.
Simple solution, some of which has already been alluded to:
1) Peg cost of water to actual market. Yes, water will be more expensive, but it will force businesses and consumers to cut down consumption w/o the need to have direct oversight.
2) Overturn the authority of the homeowners association. Allow residents to seek alternatives to that of traditional lawns (including the use of astroturf or drought resistant grass).
3) Recycle ALL waste water. Yes, that means you can drink you own "pee". And, if you don't want to use that water for direct consumption, sell it back to the farmers at cost.
4) Desalination. 'Nuff said.
5) Upgrade infrastructure. 70 percent of rainfall is wasted. We can do better than that.
All we need is a bit of faith and reason, and we can beat this thing. Namaste.
Simple solution, some of which has already been alluded to:
1) Peg cost of water to actual market. Yes, water will be more expensive, but it will force businesses and consumers to cut down consumption w/o the need to have direct oversight.
2) Overturn the authority of the homeowners association. Allow residents to seek alternatives to that of traditional lawns (including the use of astroturf or drought resistant grass).
3) Recycle ALL waste water. Yes, that means you can drink you own "pee". And, if you don't want to use that water for direct consumption, sell it back to the farmers at cost.
4) Desalination. 'Nuff said.
5) Upgrade infrastructure. 70 percent of rainfall is wasted. We can do better than that.
All we need is a bit of faith and reason, and we can beat this thing. Namaste.
So your solution is: Just make the water more expensive and trust the market. Making sure poor people can't afford water anymore.
I get it.
I get it.
It's called the Nestlé solution.
I'm not sure what the dig at environmentalists was for. Environmentalists didn't create this problem whatsoever: dramatic overuse of limited water resources did.
I've seen Urinetown three times and I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.
And also #2 above: Overturn homeowners associations.
Similar threads
