Post: #1

What's going on over there? I read an article that said that Lake Meade is almost dry and that California is going to go reverse Grapes of Wraith on everyone.

To the RvFers on the ground over there, is this some hyped up BS or a serious problem?

Post: #2

Quote:Draught Drought

Fixed.

HSLD

Post: #3

They have not raised prices for water(yet). When they do, I will be worried. Until then, not really.

Post: #4

(05-06-2015 08:47 AM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

Quote:Draught Drought

Fixed.

HSLD

Problem with the California Draught is, the drought makes it impossible to find the water to brew the California Draught.

The entire Southwest US was settled during its wettest century of the last millenium. At one time their was a vibrant Native American culture living in the four corners region. A thirty year drought completely removed their civilization from the historical record. These people were very adept at living in their arid environment. They didnt own swimming pools, lawns, or use hundreds of gallons a day per person. LA, Las Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix, Palm Springs, etc. will all not exist other than as ghost towns in about 15-20 years. Our entire planet will face incredible clean water shortages in this century, well not Canada but just about everybody else.

Post: #5

(05-06-2015 08:56 AM)Island Souljah Wrote:  LA, Las Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix, Palm Springs, etc. will all not exist other than as ghost towns in about 15-20 years.

Post: #6

Nature creates droughts, politicians create water shortages.

California is indeed in a drought. The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains has been shrinking for several years now. However, the state has not invested in any water infrastructure (ie, new reservoirs) for about 40 years. We have, however, borrowed billions of dollars through bonds to try to build a bullet train from SF to LA that no rational person believes will ever be completed. This is an example of the over-promised and under-delivered nature of pet projects in California.

Given the California supplies a great deal of the nation's produce from farms in the Central Valley, this will affect the U.S. as a whole at some point.

As a resident of California, the most frustrating thing is hearing governor Jerry Brown say this can all be solved by taking shorter showers and issuing fines for residential lawn watering. Reports have shown residential water use has been on the decline for several years, but apparently it's still not good enough for the central planners in Sacramento.

Post: #7

Here's Prof Jay Famiglietti, senior water scientist for NASA. They way he explains it, it sound like a pretty big deal.

Post: #8

They should build a pipeline from the Mississippi River to the west.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86555...tml?pg=all

Quote:The mighty Mississippi

In the Mississippi River scenario, 675,000 acre-feet of water would be diverted from the nation's largest river downstream of where it meets up with the Ohio River. From there, the water would be conveyed via tunnel, canal and a monstrous pipe 775 miles long and 144 inches in diameter to dump into the Navajo River in southwestern Colorado.

The Navajo would then deliver that water to the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, for use by agricultural users in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Those users would then be taken off the Colorado system and the savings in water would flow downstream to other cities that need to grow in the future.

Ludicrous? Not to Mulroy and others staring straight into the bottom of a dry water barrel.

"Well, you know a lot of people laugh about that," she said. "But you have to remember that Hoover Dam was built as a flood control project. And one man's flood control project is another man's water supply."

The Mississippi has a storied history of flooding — in 1927, in 1937 and in 1973. Then came last year, when seven states were awash and 130,000 acres of farmland were deliberately inundated to save a town.

Mulroy said there are lessons to be learned, and more importantly, that the excess water could come to the basin states.

"Why can't it fuel fields farther to the west. … Why can't we put that water to beneficial use?" she questioned. "It would make far more sense to capture that and begin to put it to use where it is needed here in this country."

As the bureau works through the proposals and completes its analysis in the coming months, nothing is out of reach as it approaches the caretaking of the Colorado River much like a nutritionist might.

If the river is already anemic, does it make sense to cut away more precious acre-feet of water it needs to sustain what is already here? Or is it possible to build up the health of the river through massive conservation efforts, and bring in friends like the Mississippi, Snake or Bear rivers to conduct an intervention?

Massive, money-draining projects aren't out of the question if it means water still flows through the Colorado basin, but it depends on the price willing to be paid for water out of the tap, for a lifestyle in the arid West, for the desire to keep fields growing, Strong said.

"Some of these big pipeline systems will require you spend that kind of money to move water to where the people are," Strong said, "but a lot will depend on our appetite and foresight."

I'm sure environmentalist nuts who'd love to see droves of people dead or forced to move elsewhere would protest, but it needs to be done.

Post: #9

California will just have to start having expensive desalination plants. The snow this year was horrible, I used half my lift tickets.

But theres a ton of water here, it just goes towards agriculture (almonds, wine and weed)

Post: #10

(05-06-2015 09:16 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  They should build a pipeline from the Mississippi River to the west.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86555...tml?pg=all

Quote:The mighty Mississippi

In the Mississippi River scenario, 675,000 acre-feet of water would be diverted from the nation's largest river downstream of where it meets up with the Ohio River. From there, the water would be conveyed via tunnel, canal and a monstrous pipe 775 miles long and 144 inches in diameter to dump into the Navajo River in southwestern Colorado.

The Navajo would then deliver that water to the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, for use by agricultural users in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Those users would then be taken off the Colorado system and the savings in water would flow downstream to other cities that need to grow in the future.

Ludicrous? Not to Mulroy and others staring straight into the bottom of a dry water barrel.

"Well, you know a lot of people laugh about that," she said. "But you have to remember that Hoover Dam was built as a flood control project. And one man's flood control project is another man's water supply."

The Mississippi has a storied history of flooding — in 1927, in 1937 and in 1973. Then came last year, when seven states were awash and 130,000 acres of farmland were deliberately inundated to save a town.

Mulroy said there are lessons to be learned, and more importantly, that the excess water could come to the basin states.

"Why can't it fuel fields farther to the west. … Why can't we put that water to beneficial use?" she questioned. "It would make far more sense to capture that and begin to put it to use where it is needed here in this country."

As the bureau works through the proposals and completes its analysis in the coming months, nothing is out of reach as it approaches the caretaking of the Colorado River much like a nutritionist might.

If the river is already anemic, does it make sense to cut away more precious acre-feet of water it needs to sustain what is already here? Or is it possible to build up the health of the river through massive conservation efforts, and bring in friends like the Mississippi, Snake or Bear rivers to conduct an intervention?

Massive, money-draining projects aren't out of the question if it means water still flows through the Colorado basin, but it depends on the price willing to be paid for water out of the tap, for a lifestyle in the arid West, for the desire to keep fields growing, Strong said.

"Some of these big pipeline systems will require you spend that kind of money to move water to where the people are," Strong said, "but a lot will depend on our appetite and foresight."

I'm sure environmentalist nuts who'd love to see droves of people dead or forced to move elsewhere would protest, but it needs to be done.

If you're going to do that why not just run water trains from midwest lakes to the west coast. Are the people in CA going to want to pay for all the pipes lines and tank trains? Probably not. Are the farmers, shippers and cities who use the Mississippi and Ohio rivers going to want to have their water diverted to the west coast? Probably not.

Post: #11

(05-06-2015 09:37 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:16 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  They should build a pipeline from the Mississippi River to the west.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86555...tml?pg=all

Quote:The mighty Mississippi

In the Mississippi River scenario, 675,000 acre-feet of water would be diverted from the nation's largest river downstream of where it meets up with the Ohio River. From there, the water would be conveyed via tunnel, canal and a monstrous pipe 775 miles long and 144 inches in diameter to dump into the Navajo River in southwestern Colorado.

The Navajo would then deliver that water to the San Juan River, a tributary of the Colorado River, for use by agricultural users in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Those users would then be taken off the Colorado system and the savings in water would flow downstream to other cities that need to grow in the future.

Ludicrous? Not to Mulroy and others staring straight into the bottom of a dry water barrel.

"Well, you know a lot of people laugh about that," she said. "But you have to remember that Hoover Dam was built as a flood control project. And one man's flood control project is another man's water supply."

The Mississippi has a storied history of flooding — in 1927, in 1937 and in 1973. Then came last year, when seven states were awash and 130,000 acres of farmland were deliberately inundated to save a town.

Mulroy said there are lessons to be learned, and more importantly, that the excess water could come to the basin states.

"Why can't it fuel fields farther to the west. … Why can't we put that water to beneficial use?" she questioned. "It would make far more sense to capture that and begin to put it to use where it is needed here in this country."

As the bureau works through the proposals and completes its analysis in the coming months, nothing is out of reach as it approaches the caretaking of the Colorado River much like a nutritionist might.

If the river is already anemic, does it make sense to cut away more precious acre-feet of water it needs to sustain what is already here? Or is it possible to build up the health of the river through massive conservation efforts, and bring in friends like the Mississippi, Snake or Bear rivers to conduct an intervention?

Massive, money-draining projects aren't out of the question if it means water still flows through the Colorado basin, but it depends on the price willing to be paid for water out of the tap, for a lifestyle in the arid West, for the desire to keep fields growing, Strong said.

"Some of these big pipeline systems will require you spend that kind of money to move water to where the people are," Strong said, "but a lot will depend on our appetite and foresight."

I'm sure environmentalist nuts who'd love to see droves of people dead or forced to move elsewhere would protest, but it needs to be done.

If you're going to do that why not just run water trains from midwest lakes to the west coast. Are the people in CA going to want to pay for all the pipes lines and tank trains? Probably not. Are the farmers, shippers and cities who use the Mississippi and Ohio rivers going to want to have their water diverted to the west coast? Probably not.

None of us live in a vacuum. The economies of those states contribute much to the nation, even if the people in the cities are complete weirdos. Such a project would have to be funded by taxpayer money and it is a far more worthwhile endeavor than a lot of shit the government's spending money on.

Post: #12

California could be just fine if they didn't mismanage the price of water. They don't need to build desalination plants.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalre...again.html

Post: #13

I'm an environmental engineer with research experience on water projects. Water issues, along with the general ecological situation, are what caused me to switch from pre-law to civil engineering at the beginning of college. I'd like to tell you that I found out a bunch of amazing technology that will fix this, but unfortunately that's not the case.

One of the central books you should read if you want to really grasp this issue is Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Dissappearing Water, by Marc Reisner.

Starting with the homesteading movement and Westward Expansion, there's been this image of the West that has been perpetuated through mythology, dirty money deals, and humongous government projects. This entire region is a desert, and the extravagantly-costly (in terms of money AND natural resources) cities, infrastructure, and industry we've built up have tapped out every major body of water in the area over the last 150 years with the help of dam-happy federal agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

News flash: there are no more huge sources of water. The Colorado River is tapped, Owens Valley is tapped, the Sacramento is already over-drawn (even barring a proposed pipeline to SoCal!). Groundwater is tapped bone-dry throughout the state. The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which supplies a large amount of our baseline water capacity in NorCal, has been hovering at around 10-20% of normal levels for a couple years, with no signs or anticipation of relief.

"No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Our real problem here is that we haven't invested in our infrastructure, or society generally, with any consideration to natural limits. In our economic systems, water is priced for its cost of extraction, not based on its true life cycle cost. For example: under our system we have valued water at pennies on the acre-feet to irrigate crops in the Central Valley. These crops create tens of billions in revenue under a quarterly system, but if they destroy any potential for agriculture or civilization in the area for a hundred years after, they should rightly be net-negative in ROI.

Our problems with environmental or energy issues in America stem from this: we ONLY think short-term and hope for the best, which works until it doesn't. And in fact that naive hope is what prevents any hope of sustainability, because it allows us to ignore the irresolvable issues that our civilization and individuals confront: that we can't keep going on like this, that technology won't save us from our hubristic need for endless material growth, but that we don't really have any "big ideas" that will save us.

The number one thing that would save water in CA is to do conservation (through changing user habits AND infrastructure investment to cure leaky pipelines, plumbing, etc.). However, with water prices so low, this has no shot of getting off the ground on the scale it's needed, because end-users have little cost incentive to save on infrastructure, and on a personal level people don't feel enlisted in some grand water-saving strategy (understandable).

People have no idea of what their comfortable lives actually depend on, because they don't want to know and because they're lied to all the time by the agents of progress. In this situation, of course water can be undervalued, even if it causes disastrous long-term effects, because the issue is far-away and complicated. This math won't change until resource limits start hitting us hard, when the rule of quarterly profits gives way to the brutal calculus of necessity and survival.

I don't really see us attempting substantial and necessary reforms until it's too late, unfortunately. The issue's too abstract for the general public, regulatory frameworks are totally outdated, and special interests are too entrenched and can get any ordinary scientist like me shouted down.

tl;dr: I'm a water research engineer. This drought is only going to perpetuate and intensify. If you live in the American West, and intend to stay long-term, you should look at the current drought situation, projected rainfall patterns in your area for coming decades, consider how secure your place is - and make serious considerations of bugging out to wetter climates. If you have to stay in the West, stay away from large, urban centers in deserts - all of Southern California, Las Vegas, Phoenix / Tucson metros for AZ are all particularly fucked.

Post: #14

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  "No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

What if the desalinization plant were run by Tesla Power Walls?

Post: #15

Special thanks to the mods correcting my grade school level mistakes

Post: #16

(05-06-2015 08:38 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  What's going on over there?

The fires of hell burn hot in California. That's where the water went.

(05-06-2015 09:03 AM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  ...issuing fines for residential lawn watering.

People don't eat grass. It seems a no-brainer to give up yards to conserve the water for people food. Seem logical? Well, common sense isn't so common on the West Coast. They'll come around though when a head of lettuce costs $5. This will be after they beg the taxpayer to subsidize food cost for them.

(05-06-2015 09:32 AM)Lochte Wrote:  California will just have to start having expensive desalination plants. The snow this year was horrible, I used half my lift tickets.

But theres a ton of water here, it just goes towards agriculture (almonds, wine and weed)

Desalinization plants just aren't cost effective. And anything built in California will be controlled there and thus require heavy taxpayer subsidies.

(05-06-2015 09:37 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  If you're going to do that why not just run water trains from midwest lakes to the west coast. Are the people in CA going to want to pay for all the pipes lines and tank trains? Probably not. Are the farmers, shippers and cities who use the Mississippi and Ohio rivers going to want to have their water diverted to the west coast? Probably not.

The Gulf Coast has plenty of h2o. During hurricane season they'll be glad to pipe that surplus somewhere else. I support a pipeline to the West Coast. The rest of America relies heavily on agriculture from there and we need to remain as self-sufficient as possible. Right now over 100k have been laid off from the oilfields, and would be prime time to start building a massive aquaduct. This gives control to us so when the liberals start whining for more handouts, we can just turn off the spigot and let their yards turn brown.

   


And if California really did completely dry up, there would be a mass exodus of people across the U.S. The economic/political implications would sink this country within 4 election periods. We need to do whatever it takes to keep the population where it is. Trust me.

Post: #17

This is a symptom of taking water for granted. People behave like it will always be there regardless of how many man hours and taxes it takes to keep up and regulate.

Desalination plants are your only choice.

Post: #18

Now no one can disagree that California is the thirstiest state in the country!

Post: #19

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  "No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Actually Desalination could easily solve the problem.

Check out the Sorek plant in Israel and the amount of water it desalinates per day.

Post: #20

(05-06-2015 10:34 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  This is a symptom of taking water for granted. People behave like it will always be there regardless of how many man hours and taxes it takes to keep up and regulate.

Desalination plants are your only choice.

Desal plants are already happening. Carlsbad (North of SD) opens this year. And there are plans for an even bigger one in the South Bay area of San Diego.

Orange County has had 'toilet-to-tap' for years. It's why they are not as hurt by the recent drought.

By the middle of next decade - most areas in the state will have toilet-to-tap and in addition to the two desal plants in SD there will be 8 to 10 more.

Post: #21

(05-06-2015 10:53 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  "No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Actually Desalination could easily solve the problem.

Check out the Sorek plant in Israel and the amount of water it desalinates per day.

There is no "solving the problem" when it comes to our environmental predicament. There are only adaptive measures and infrastructure investments that we can make in order to conserve what's left, but nothing can make up for the bounty we've blown away.

In order to illustrate the magnitude of the shortfall we're facing, I'll use as an example the Carlsbad desalination plant, our nation's largest desal facility. That installation which cost roughly $1billion, has a 50mgd (million gallons per day) capacity - or around 150 acre-feet per day (an acre-foot is a unit used in water analysis, defined by the volume of one foot of water over the area of an acre).

That 150 acre-feet per day translates to around 50,000 acre-ft per year, from this installation. Here's where we run into problems. We use around 40 MILLION acre-feet per year in California, and are looking at a shortage of around 2 million acre-ft, or worse, every year from 2018 on.

So, by these calculations, to meet that shortfall through de-sal, we'd have to build AT LEAST $20 billion of plant infrastructure. Look at the host of other infrastructure fuck-ups (see: high speed rail) that we've failed to solve when we actually had money, and it's clear that funding for a huge new infrastructure project is simply not going to happen like people expect it to, especially as economic and civil unrest escalate in the west.

This doesn't even go into the fact that most Desal would rely on the same fossil-fuel energy exacerbating this whole mess. Or that a huge part of desal being viable at all is because of the efficiency that massive fossil-fuel consumption gives to any technology, which won't last as we see a drawdown of our carbon resources. Or the opportunity cost of pursuing a yet-another-technological-miracle approach to tackling our problems, thus leaving our larger systems of governance, communities, and economies in the lurch when it comes making decisions and learning to face hard realities of for survival in a resource-depleted world.

Post: #22

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  I'm an environmental engineer with research experience on water projects. Water issues, along with the general ecological situation, are what caused me to switch from pre-law to civil engineering at the beginning of college. I'd like to tell you that I found out a bunch of amazing technology that will fix this, but unfortunately that's not the case.

One of the central books you should read if you want to really grasp this issue is Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Dissappearing Water, by Marc Reisner.

Starting with the homesteading movement and Westward Expansion, there's been this image of the West that has been perpetuated through mythology, dirty money deals, and humongous government projects. This entire region is a desert, and the extravagantly-costly (in terms of money AND natural resources) cities, infrastructure, and industry we've built up have tapped out every major body of water in the area over the last 150 years with the help of dam-happy federal agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

News flash: there are no more huge sources of water. The Colorado River is tapped, Owens Valley is tapped, the Sacramento is already over-drawn (even barring a proposed pipeline to SoCal!). Groundwater is tapped bone-dry throughout the state. The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which supplies a large amount of our baseline water capacity in NorCal, has been hovering at around 10-20% of normal levels for a couple years, with no signs or anticipation of relief.

"No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Our real problem here is that we haven't invested in our infrastructure, or society generally, with any consideration to natural limits. In our economic systems, water is priced for its cost of extraction, not based on its true life cycle cost. For example: under our system we have valued water at pennies on the acre-feet to irrigate crops in the Central Valley. These crops create tens of billions in revenue under a quarterly system, but if they destroy any potential for agriculture or civilization in the area for a hundred years after, they should rightly be net-negative in ROI.

Our problems with environmental or energy issues in America stem from this: we ONLY think short-term and hope for the best, which works until it doesn't. And in fact that naive hope is what prevents any hope of sustainability, because it allows us to ignore the irresolvable issues that our civilization and individuals confront: that we can't keep going on like this, that technology won't save us from our hubristic need for endless material growth, but that we don't really have any "big ideas" that will save us.

The number one thing that would save water in CA is to do conservation (through changing user habits AND infrastructure investment to cure leaky pipelines, plumbing, etc.). However, with water prices so low, this has no shot of getting off the ground on the scale it's needed, because end-users have little cost incentive to save on infrastructure, and on a personal level people don't feel enlisted in some grand water-saving strategy (understandable).

People have no idea of what their comfortable lives actually depend on, because they don't want to know and because they're lied to all the time by the agents of progress. In this situation, of course water can be undervalued, even if it causes disastrous long-term effects, because the issue is far-away and complicated. This math won't change until resource limits start hitting us hard, when the rule of quarterly profits gives way to the brutal calculus of necessity and survival.

I don't really see us attempting substantial and necessary reforms until it's too late, unfortunately. The issue's too abstract for the general public, regulatory frameworks are totally outdated, and special interests are too entrenched and can get any ordinary scientist like me shouted down.

tl;dr: I'm a water research engineer. This drought is only going to perpetuate and intensify. If you live in the American West, and intend to stay long-term, you should look at the current drought situation, projected rainfall patterns in your area for coming decades, consider how secure your place is - and make serious considerations of bugging out to wetter climates. If you have to stay in the West, stay away from large, urban centers in deserts - all of Southern California, Las Vegas, Phoenix / Tucson metros for AZ are all particularly fucked.

(05-06-2015 09:03 AM)IvanDrago Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:56 AM)Island Souljah Wrote:  LA, Las Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix, Palm Springs, etc. will all not exist other than as ghost towns in about 15-20 years.

Who is laughing now? Water refugees in the 21st century will be the largest exodus of people in human history recorded or otherwise. Most people arent even aware that Coca Cola and Nestle probably own largely or entirely their own municipal water sources so that they can sell you back your own bottled tap water.

Post: #23

(05-06-2015 11:20 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:53 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  "No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Actually Desalination could easily solve the problem.

Check out the Sorek plant in Israel and the amount of water it desalinates per day.

There is no "solving the problem" when it comes to our environmental predicament. There are only adaptive measures and infrastructure investments that we can make in order to conserve what's left, but nothing can make up for the bounty we've blown away.

In order to illustrate the magnitude of the shortfall we're facing, I'll use as an example the Carlsbad desalination plant, our nation's largest desal facility. That installation which cost roughly $1billion, has a 50mgd (million gallons per day) capacity - or around 150 acre-feet per day (an acre-foot is a unit used in water analysis, defined by the volume of one foot of water over the area of an acre).

That 150 acre-feet per day translates to around 50,000 acre-ft per year, from this installation. Here's where we run into problems. We use around 40 MILLION acre-feet per year in California, and are looking at a shortage of around 2 million acre-ft, or worse, every year from 2018 on.

So, by these calculations, to meet that shortfall through de-sal, we'd have to build AT LEAST $20 billion of plant infrastructure. Look at the host of other infrastructure fuck-ups (see: high speed rail) that we've failed to solve when we actually had money, and it's clear that funding for a huge new infrastructure project is simply not going to happen like people expect it to, especially as economic and civil unrest escalate in the west.

This doesn't even go into the fact that most Desal would rely on the same fossil-fuel energy exacerbating this whole mess. Or that a huge part of desal being viable at all is because of the efficiency that massive fossil-fuel consumption gives to any technology, which won't last as we see a drawdown of our carbon resources. Or the opportunity cost of pursuing a yet-another-technological-miracle approach to tackling our problems, thus leaving our larger systems of governance, communities, and economies in the lurch when it comes making decisions and learning to face hard realities of for survival in a resource-depleted world.

I believe he is drawing a distinction between actual drinking water for people and water for agricultural and industrial use.

Desal will solve the drinking water problem, but it won't solve the water needed for agriculture.

A nuclear desalination plant will also solve the fossil fuel problem. Won't happen in Cali.

Post: #24

(05-06-2015 11:20 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:53 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  "No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Actually Desalination could easily solve the problem.

Check out the Sorek plant in Israel and the amount of water it desalinates per day.

There is no "solving the problem" when it comes to our environmental predicament. There are only adaptive measures and infrastructure investments that we can make in order to conserve what's left, but nothing can make up for the bounty we've blown away.

In order to illustrate the magnitude of the shortfall we're facing, I'll use as an example the Carlsbad desalination plant, our nation's largest desal facility. That installation which cost roughly $1billion, has a 50mgd (million gallons per day) capacity - or around 150 acre-feet per day (an acre-foot is a unit used in water analysis, defined by the volume of one foot of water over the area of an acre).

That 150 acre-feet per day translates to around 50,000 acre-ft per year, from this installation. Here's where we run into problems. We use around 40 MILLION acre-feet per year in California, and are looking at a shortage of around 2 million acre-ft, or worse, every year from 2018 on.

So, by these calculations, to meet that shortfall through de-sal, we'd have to build AT LEAST $20 billion of plant infrastructure. Look at the host of other infrastructure fuck-ups (see: high speed rail) that we've failed to solve when we actually had money, and it's clear that funding for a huge new infrastructure project is simply not going to happen like people expect it to, especially as economic and civil unrest escalate in the west.

This doesn't even go into the fact that most Desal would rely on the same fossil-fuel energy exacerbating this whole mess. Or that a huge part of desal being viable at all is because of the efficiency that massive fossil-fuel consumption gives to any technology, which won't last as we see a drawdown of our carbon resources. Or the opportunity cost of pursuing a yet-another-technological-miracle approach to tackling our problems, thus leaving our larger systems of governance, communities, and economies in the lurch when it comes making decisions and learning to face hard realities of for survival in a resource-depleted world.

The desals aren't meant to provide for all water needs, but to supplement. It'll help in the bad years and in the years where there is excess, rain and snow it will serve to completely fill reservoirs.

As far as energy consumption, I know the Carlsbad desal plant is partnering with UCSD to run part of the plant on algae fuel. Is it a perfect set up? No. But, there are far smarter people than I working on ways to make it work.

Post: #25

There's all kinds of factors here. I lived in L.A. for 15 years and currently in Vegas. I was just at Lake Mead yesterday (it's not dried up) But I agree that the writing on the wall is that the entire SW region is fucked if things continue along their current trend. Lake Mead is currently at 1079 feet. If it dips below 1075 feet, there will be water rationing in Nevada and Arizona.

Here are a couple factors not being mentioned by the media, from a renter's perspective.

In L.A., it's very uncommon for renters to pay for their own water. It's included in the rent, but people don't think about it like that. Basically, they never see a water bill. They pay electricity and usually gas too, and that's it.

Add to the fact that water is too cheap, and this explains some of the stupidest shit I've seen in L.A. Up until I left in February of this year, I was still seeing retards washing down their driveway or sidewalk with a garden hose. Go to any semi-affluent neighborhood and every single house has a lawn. It's the same here in Vegas too. I live in Suburbia and the majority of houses have lawns, with the occasional yard having natural desert landscaping, an aesthetic which I personally prefer. The desert has some beautiful natural wildflowers and cacti, and these look more in place than having a stupid fucking lawn in the middle of the desert.

The place I'm renting has a lawn, and I tweaked the sprinkler system to water less, because I'm a cheapskate and hate lawns. The lawn is starting to get a little yellow and if I let it get too bad, the homeowners association can fine me. So I can either soak the shit out of the lawn which will double my water bill and is a huge waste, or pay for a landscaping company to overhaul the front and back yard here to a desert appearance (which I would do if I owned the place), or do it myself (which would still cost thousands in equipment rental and plants) or request the owner do it, which he wouldn't in a million years. By the time people change their lawn watering habits, it will be too late.

There have been interesting studies on tree rings to study droughts over the last 1200 years. There are indeed droughts that go for 5, 10, sometimes 15 years. I have no doubts that this drought will break, but the problem is the massive and inefficient water consumption. While Lake Mead is at it's lowest point since it was being filled in 1930, the Water Authority has just completed a tunnel that will insert a third straw into the lake to draw even more water out. Vegas is expanding faster than ever.

Gonna be an interesting year