Water, water everywhere . . . and not a drop to drink. (fertilizer, plastic, natural)

[Teak]

Originally Posted by BrokenTap

One interesting thing I read recently that Maine (where I live) actually has increased its water levels. We have been getting 5 more inches of rain per year for the last 8 years or so. Before that (going back 50 years) we have steadily been increasing in rainfall.

It would be interesting to see why we are getting an increase in rainfall in the east and a lack of rainfall in the west though?

I think that the positioning of the upper-level winds (jetstream) has a lot to do with the variation in weather patterns across the USA. I became aware of this when I lived in Alaska. The jetstream flows like a river, in broad meandering S-curves. Those curves move periodically and can bring heavy precipitation to one area and not to another.

For example, whenever there was a cold snap in Alaska, there was often warmer weather in the upper Midwest and Northeast USA. Conversely, whenever we had nicer weather in Alaska (winter-time), the upper part of the Lower 48 would have heavy snow and/or very cold temperatures. The TV meterologist often would blame this on the position of the jetstream.

Sunspot cycles also have an impact on the earth's weather systems. Take a look at this website link, posted by someone in the Green Living discussion forum.

StormX :: Global Cooling : The Sun’s Influence on ENSO, Is There a Connection?

Basically, ENSO = El Nino Southern Oscillation, the phenomenon discovered by Ecuadoran fishermen years ago by which fish disappear periodically from the waters off the Ecuador coast due to a warming of the ocean waters. This causes a cessation of upwelling that brings nutrient-rich water upwards and feeds the food chain. The fish (tuna) have no food source and so they move elsewhere. Anyway, this cycle is affected, apparently, by the sunspot cycle. To Alaskans, this is not weird since the auroral displays are heavily affected by the sunspot cycle also.

[forest beekeeper]

It does not take a rocket scientist to see the problem of water in California.

I grew up in California, on a farm. My parents farmed, and one of my siblings is still a farmer there. California is huge, and it's farm industry is likewise very large. But the state also shares it's space with massive cities.

LA alone is 17 million people.

County by county farm land has been legally restricted from using irrigation water.

Once thriving crop land has been turned into cities [Fresno, Merced, Turlock, Modesto, Stockton, Sacramento].

Good farm land chopped up by developers and turned into suburia. Each acre that once produced tonnes of food, now instead houses thousands of people.

And an individual city that has 17 Million! That is an insane amount of people. Many states do not have that many people in their entire state.

Farming is work, it makes money but it's primary goal is to feed people. Sub-dividing is fast and easy, and it makes higher profits. Quick and easy and immoral profits.

Our farm land disappears and becomes massive cities; and folks wonder why we do not have enough water?

California has 36 million people in it. When it had 1 million there was plenty of water.

If you put 36 million people into any other state, that state would soon have problems finding drinking water.

I live today in a fairly wet state, with only 1.3 million people.



Then lets consider where you decide to build your cities shall we? A valley with no potable water? is not a smart place to build a city, ever.

So we build a dry city. Now since LA has gotten so over-populated, the developers stretched out into the Mohave Desert and began building cities in the desert. Then lemmings flocked to the Mohave Desert. They bought homes, and built shopping malls, and schools. So now a dry valley hosts LA, and the urban population density is in the desert.

Palmdale has 800+ thousand people. Plus: Lancaster, Victorville, Hesperia, St. George, Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Laughlin, Bullhead City and Pahrump. Are all cities that have been booming in the Mohave Desert. Where there is no water. There never has been, there never will be. [plus Barstow, Rosamond, Needles, Nipton, Ridgecrest, California City, Twentynine Palms, Joshua Tree, Pioneertown, and Mojave).

Does it take a rocket scientist? to consider that if you build a city, in a place with no water, that maybe folks will get thristy?

Those thristy people demand potable water, so they go to court, and sue the farmers who have water up in their regions of the state. And county by county those farm areas go dry.

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by forest beekeeper

Does it take a rocket scientist? to consider that if you build a city, in a place with no water, that maybe folks will get thristy?

Those thristy people demand potable water, so they go to court, and sue the farmers who have water up in their regions of the state. And county by county those farm areas go dry.

I agree with you totally, but on the other hand, often times people do not plan to build a city. It just grows and grows and grows. My parents lived in the valley back when there were orange orchards there. It was a paradise at one time. Now it is just sprawl.

People insist on having more children than the planet can support. This is an excellent example. The nay-sayers will chime in that there is PLENTY OF SPACE left on this planet for lots more people, but anyone with half a brain can see that while that may be true, the resources that feed and water humanity are growing ever more scarce - especially water. Many years ago my mother said to me that one day wars would be fought over water, and I am beginning to see that unfortunate prediction come true.

The world needs to work together to stem population growth. A large part of the problem in the LA area has to deal with legal and illegal immigration to the area. *and* those people (chiefly Latino, chiefly Roman Catholic) reproducing in droves. Until people REALIZE that it is not a good idea to have 3 or 5 or 7 or 12 children, the problem is only going to get worse and worse until it is critical.

20yrsinBranson

[forest beekeeper]

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

I agree with you totally, but on the other hand, often times people do not plan to build a city. It just grows and grows and grows. My parents lived in the valley back when there were orange orchards there. It was a paradise at one time. Now it is just sprawl.

Whether a town has 100 homes, or 1,000 homes, or 10,000 homes; each time a new home is built there is a permit needed. Each time a developer chops up a 100 acre parcel into 500 home lots, a permit was needed.

Every town has a zoning and planning department.

Every time that land goes from one kind of use to another kind of use; there was a meeting, there was a discussion, there was a vote, and there was a plan formed.

Orange orchards that became urban sprawl, happened according to a series of plans.

It was planned.

And the planners and politicians blew off the concept that folks would need water.

They made their profits.

[w1ngzer0]

It is only when tragedy strikes when things will change. It is too bad because there was decades to prepare for such an event to never happen.

I like the idea one group is pushing, Skyfarms. Use our yummy gray water for the crops and storage the excess filtered water underground. No need for nutrient filters, dirt, any any of that and watch nature restore itself without human intervention.

[jdavid93225]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

Forget about Global Warming! A bigger threat to California and other states may be running out of water for drinking and irrigation. An extended drought in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and other Western States may be catastrophic to ALL Western States.

If any of you have ideas in how to prevent this possible disaster I would like to hear what they are. I have a few of my own I will post in a few days if they aren't duplicated by others here.

GL2

A concept that I would like to see would be that of "dual service" for water supply. The idea being that you could have both potable and non-potable water delivered to homes and businesses. The potable water could be used for drinking, cooking, brushing of teeth, watering of vegetables, and so on. The non-potable water could be used for other less vital services, such as watering of lawns and flower beds, flushing of toilets (the seats would need to be left down to keep Fido from drinking there), fire suppression, and so on.

This would, however, be a very costly undertaking, especially in older communities. Arguments could be made either way for which type of water to use for laundering clothes and showering. Perhaps washing machines could be built to use non-potable water for the wash cycle and potable water for the rinse cycle, to prevent the possibility of skin irritation from the non-potable water. The major drawback would be the requirement that there be two parallel distribution systems to deliver both types of water. The reasonable solution that is currently being implemented in numerous areas is that of delivering non-potable water to the water users with the highest water use that is not intended for human
consumption. Golf courses, manufacturing, and highway landscaping are prime examples of this type of use.

The other processes that are currently being address besides use of reclaimed water are those that reduce the amount of water consumption. Low flow toilets and shower heads, and low- or no- water required landscaping are examples of these concepts. Further improvements could be made in these areas to reduce consumption among residential and business customers, but there is still a massive amount of consumption in the agriculture area. Watering of crops could be done with reclaimed water in some cases where the crops are not food crops, such as cotton. If the reclaimed water were properly treated, it could even be used for food crops as longs as any legislative roadblocks were removed. Using reclaimed water for agriculture would be one of the best solutions I could see for water conservation in the west.

[vec101]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

Exactly.

The problem is primarily one of WASTE. People move to the arid Southwest, yet demand to have lush lawns like they would if they were living in Minnesota or Wisconsin. Then they expect to be able to grow corn in New Mexico as if they were living in Iowa. And too many blue-bloods want to be able to golf in Arizona on a course that looks like it's in Hawaii.

Bottom line: It doesn't work.

Bottom line #2: We may have to decide whether we want to have green lawns and fancy landscaping, or be able to have food to eat.

Agree.

It's pretty hard to feel bad for someone who moves to a desert then complains about not enough water for all their wants and needs.

[revelated]

I know this is a 2-month old thread...but I felt compelled to comment when I saw....

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

There is also the issue of waste. How many people do you know who feel that they have to take a shower every single day? If you have an inside desk job, it is not necessary.

Am I reading this right? Is someone suggesting that a shower a day is "not necessary"? That because I work in an office behind a desk, I somehow do not need to shower daily?

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

People insist on having more children than the planet can support. This is an excellent example. The nay-sayers will chime in that there is PLENTY OF SPACE left on this planet for lots more people, but anyone with half a brain can see that while that may be true, the resources that feed and water humanity are growing ever more scarce - especially water. Many years ago my mother said to me that one day wars would be fought over water, and I am beginning to see that unfortunate prediction come true.

The world needs to work together to stem population growth. A large part of the problem in the LA area has to deal with legal and illegal immigration to the area. *and* those people (chiefly Latino, chiefly Roman Catholic) reproducing in droves. Until people REALIZE that it is not a good idea to have 3 or 5 or 7 or 12 children, the problem is only going to get worse and worse until it is critical.

20yrsinBranson

I believe some of your views are outdated.

One of the biggest threats to the world today (The Economist magazine had a spread on the effects of worldwide again population problems) is the aging population. Japan's leads the way (followed by Korea, Italy, Germany and Spain) and their population is expected to decline from 120M to 100M and downwards from there. Russia, with its 140M, will have the sharpest decline over the years.

Even Mexico's fertility rate keeps getting lower and lower.

The Muslim countries are the leaders in increasing their populations.

In the article, it was said that even in the poorest countries, they're only 3 decades away from having their own aging population.

A severe drought can effect any part of this country at any time. Just look at the SE the past couple years, threatened by severely low water levels.

If all the Southwesterners packed it up and moved to Atlanta or the Midwest, the water problem would only be transferred to where they moved to.

We must look to other arid areas of the world to see how they're solving their water problems, like Israel, the Middle East, northern Africa.

[marmac]

As a young boy in grade school ( mid-1950's ) our teacher touched on the subject of water and a growing population.

She said cities near the ocean would not have a problem because de-salination would be common in 20 years.

That was 55 years ago !

What happened to her vision of de-salination as a solution ?