What California can learn from Saudi Arabia’s water mystery

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

California get what percentage of its water from the Colorado River?

Not much. Why?

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr

Well it is solely manufactured by agriculture, why?

People and businesses use 20% of the water, that's 1/5th. If we had less wasteful agriculture (read no almonds, no alfalfa alone), we would have more than enough water, even in the dry years for everyone in the state.

All the cuts are being asked of residential users which is a pittance. Almonds, which most of which go to China, alone consume more water than the entire cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ridiculous.

It will rain again, it will be dry again, that is the cycle of weather in CA. Ever think about how if it is most recently been the driest, we could be in for a wettest? Doesn't fit the narrative though.

Frightening people with apocalyptic visions of the Sahara in San Francisco is far more effective to bully people into behavior that suits an agenda, but yields little benefit.

This is my point exactly. Even with the lack of rain, we would still have enough water to support all the humans and businesses. We are putting a strain on our resources because of agriculture.

[sourdough]

I don't like big business anyway, so what the heck. Bring on the SCAPEGOAT! Grower's, tag your it. Take a walk in the woods.

[Wells5]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

California get what percentage of its water from the Colorado River?

The yearly water allocation for SoCal from the Colorado River is 4.4 million acre-feet, about 30% of total water supply in a normal year. With the severe 80% cutback in water delivery through the California Aqueduct and the iffy flow in the LA Aqueduct, the Colorado accounts for a lot more of the Metropolitan Water District's distribution than the normal 25%.

[slo1318]

California agriculture is the best and most advanced in the world , there is nothing wrong with irrigation.

[Gunluvver2]

Things California has:
Direct access to the Pacific Ocean.
Abundant energy from Tidal, Wind and Solar.
Millions of acres of dry desert land not being used.

Things California could build:
Water pipeline from Ocean to desert space 250 miles or less inland.
Wind , solar or wave energy system to pump seawater inland.
Evaporation areas where seawater could evaporate and condense as freshwater to be used.

Products to be sold for revenues:
Fresh water.
Various salts from Seawater.

What is really needed: Creative thinkers.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

Things California has:
Direct access to the Pacific Ocean.
Abundant energy from Tidal, Wind and Solar.
Millions of acres of dry desert land not being used.

Things California could build:
Water pipeline from Ocean to desert space 250 miles or less inland.
Wind , solar or wave energy system to pump seawater inland.
Evaporation areas where seawater could evaporate and condense as freshwater to be used.

Products to be sold for revenues:
Fresh water.
Various salts from Seawater.

What is really needed: Creative thinkers.

This idea of tapping the ocean has naturally been discussed before. The problems are fundamental.

1. Cost: You are underestimating the energy cost of pumping water uphill to get into the desert regions. It is going to be high enough that no private industry will want to take a risky gamble and invest in building all of that infrastructure.

2. Engineering: This is related to cost. Seawater is very corrosive so any system will naturally come with high maintenance costs.

3. Environment: Not all of the desert is useless land. There are surprisingly diverse regions filled with California-unique creatures. This limits where your project can be placed.

4. Occupied routes: I think the best routes for pumping seawater inland has already been taken by homes and businesses. The best routes would follow the relatively flat valleys as much as possible and should have just a couple of steep sections to handle.

5. More Economics: There may be a market for some of the byproducts of ocean evaporation, however the same products can likely be supplied and shipped from elsewhere at a lower cost. You can ignore this if you're only arguing for this as a value-added proposal for cost mitigation and operating at a loss is therefore okay.

6. Waste disposal: There's going to be useless and/or worthless byproducts from the seawater that will require disposal. Obviously it'll be expensive to truck it out back to the sea. However, landfills are expensive because out of the limited regions available for the project, one would prefer to maximize it for production rather than waste it on a collection area that doesn't generate revenue. If the products also happen to be unstable and difficult to pack down, perhaps dissolves in water, even the landfill will have no RE value later on. By the way, there is natural radiation in ocean water that is normally something we can ignore. However, we will be concentrating that material in the waste collection pile.

So clearly the issue has to do with costs. The only "creative thinking" that can overcome this obstacle are of the same class of scamtastic financial products that led to the economic collapse.

However, it might be doable if the almond growers successfully sell almonds at such a massive premium that this all becomes affordable to them.

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by Wells5

The yearly water allocation for SoCal from the Colorado River is 4.4 million acre-feet, about 30% of total water supply in a normal year. With the severe 80% cutback in water delivery through the California Aqueduct and the iffy flow in the LA Aqueduct, the Colorado accounts for a lot more of the Metropolitan Water District's distribution than the normal 25%.

I read the same 4.4 million statistic, but to a total of about 40 million annually, which would make the river's contribution to the state closer to 10%.

I still dont' know what that has to do with the price of rice in China, though.

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

This idea of tapping the ocean has naturally been discussed before. The problems are fundamental.

1. Cost: You are underestimating the energy cost of pumping water uphill to get into the desert regions. It is going to be high enough that no private industry will want to take a risky gamble and invest in building all of that infrastructure.

2. Engineering: This is related to cost. Seawater is very corrosive so any system will naturally come with high maintenance costs.

3. Environment: Not all of the desert is useless land. There are surprisingly diverse regions filled with California-unique creatures. This limits where your project can be placed.

4. Occupied routes: I think the best routes for pumping seawater inland has already been taken by homes and businesses. The best routes would follow the relatively flat valleys as much as possible and should have just a couple of steep sections to handle.

5. More Economics: There may be a market for some of the byproducts of ocean evaporation, however the same products can likely be supplied and shipped from elsewhere at a lower cost. You can ignore this if you're only arguing for this as a value-added proposal for cost mitigation and operating at a loss is therefore okay.

6. Waste disposal: There's going to be useless and/or worthless byproducts from the seawater that will require disposal. Obviously it'll be expensive to truck it out back to the sea. However, landfills are expensive because out of the limited regions available for the project, one would prefer to maximize it for production rather than waste it on a collection area that doesn't generate revenue. If the products also happen to be unstable and difficult to pack down, perhaps dissolves in water, even the landfill will have no RE value later on. By the way, there is natural radiation in ocean water that is normally something we can ignore. However, we will be concentrating that material in the waste collection pile.

So clearly the issue has to do with costs. The only "creative thinking" that can overcome this obstacle are of the same class of scamtastic financial products that led to the economic collapse.

However, it might be doable if the almond growers successfully sell almonds at such a massive premium that this all becomes affordable to them.

MANY Californians are already paying close to $5.00 per a 20 oz bottle of water. Using CLEAN solar, wind and wave power would probably allow a profit if right of ways didn't cause expenses to rise drastically.