Can California Requisition Water From the Columbia River via Congress? (Huntington Beach: sale, 2013)

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I think in 10 years So Cal is doomed!

Have you read any of the links? SoCal has been the most progressive, and aggressive, addressing water issues. A 14x increase in water storage. Over 100m gallons per day of recycled water. Water usage today the same as '70s levels. It's the rest of California that's been relatively inert on the issue.

Yet the jeremiads come up time and again as though they're unacceptable facts that don't fit the narrative. Yeah, we as well as everyone else can do more. And in SoCal we will, and have at least displayed the will.

[TrueTimbers]

Beau....

I know that... But unfortunately, it is those major urban areas that are the worst abusers. If for no other reason than their sheer numbers. (Not placing blame..)

But seriously more water from somewhere else is not a solution... Conservation is. Habits need to change.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

50 million gallons/day? California has 38 million people, That's 5 quarts/person/day. And the average Californian uses 230 gallons of water/day. So unless you're going to build dozens and dozens of desalinization plants (and people who spend more time actually informing themselves, and less time trying to sound like emotional juveniles, understand that the energy requirements of desalinization make this completely unworkable), it's just not going to work.

PS - Grow up. Lose the snotty petulance and act like an adult.



No, the supply is not the issue. Using ones water properly is the issue. That means not pouring massive amounts of it into having nice pretty bright green lawn in desert and semi-desert areas (or, frankly, anywhere - I live where natural water is abundant and its beyond me, this obsession people have with their absurd lawns) is part of the issue. Not having nice private swimming pools all over the place is part of the issue. And recycling water for various purposes at various levels of recycling - ie, non-drinking water does not need to be as pure as, for example, water for the toilet tank.

Desalinization is but one small part of the solution - to think otherwise is just a matter of being ill-informed and embracing panaceas over realistic solutions.

There are plenty of ways to stretch water, more in some areas and less in others but still useful avenues for conservation everywhere. Industry and agriculture can cut their usage, but most of the opportunity is for residents. And this is a problem everywhere. It is currently acute in California, but it's also a problem in other areas, even if the smug people there haven't figured it out yet.



California Drought: Database shows big difference between water guzzlers and sippers - San Jose Mercury News

Drought by the Numbers: Where Does California Water Go? | Where We Are | SoCal Focus | KCET

Very good!

Look at those residential statistics!...
Wha... Give me more water...


Lets look more closely at agriculture next in many area's... Many area's are still using flood irrigation, which uses enormous amounts of water and salts the soil, as most of it is evaporated. Very primitive damaging irrigation method. Now on the other hand, most of the lettuce growers around Salinas are using drip irrigation on raised beds... This method of irrigation applies the water directly where it is needed and uses substantially less water and does not destroy the soil..

This water crisis should be viewed as a good thing... Time to make changes, time for farms to modernize for their own good and financial viability and sustainability. Time for residential water users to come to terms with reality.. YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!

Like the graphs, but I personally know of yards in LA, where they waste water in a big way... So would not quite call them water misers...

[Wilson502]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

Lets look more closely at agriculture next in many area's... Many area's are still using flood irrigation, which uses enormous amounts of water and salts the soil, as most of it is evaporated. Very primitive damaging irrigation method. Now on the other hand, most of the lettuce growers around Salinas are using drip irrigation on raised beds... This method of irrigation applies the water directly where it is needed and uses substantially less water and does not destroy the soil..

This water crisis should be viewed as a good thing... Time to make changes, time for farms to modernize for their own good and financial viability and sustainability. Time for residential water users to come to terms with reality.. YOU LIVE IN A DESERT!

Like the graphs, but I personally know of yards in LA, where they waste water in a big way... So would not quite call them water misers...

At least your honestly pointing out the biggest offenders....... and me growing up in the dump that is the central valley, the farmers will put up a stink to change their ways like they always do. Desal may still be needed for major metro areas if conservation & water recycling fails to bridge the gap if CA becomes a more arid climate long term which most climate models are tending to predict.

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

Like the graphs, but I personally know of yards in LA, where they waste water in a big way... So would not quite call them water misers...

I know folks in Pleasanton and Milpitas too. Fact is, higher usage correlates to income. In working class towns like Norwalk or Paramount, etc., the rates are 108 to 130 or so. The wealthy are the ones that need targeting. And it's not just, or really at all, swimming pools--another false boogieman. There was a count completed, and there are about 43K residential swimming pools in the Los Angeles basin. In a city of almost 4 million.

I've also pointed out before that the Inland Empire "desert" areas actually don't import municipal water but are water independent. These water districts don't need any reminding about drought, but they're off the table for this interstate aquaduct discussion, and the various and sundry assumptions that come with it.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Bunjee

Have you read any of the links? SoCal has been the most progressive, and aggressive, addressing water issues. A 14x increase in water storage. Over 100m gallons per day of recycled water. Water usage today the same as '70s levels. It's the rest of California that's been relatively inert on the issue.

Yet the jeremiads come up time and again as though they're unacceptable facts that don't fit the narrative. Yeah, we as well as everyone else can do more. And in SoCal we will, and have at least displayed the will.

It's great So Cal is trying to conserve. I live in So Cal and I shower about once every four days (my poor wife )no, just kidding it's not that bad but I don't sweat so I can get away with it. I do more frequently take half-showers where I just wash the bottom half (where it counts ) so I'm doing my part to conserve.

But this situation is like a blading man spreading his strands further and further apart as more hair disappears. If we don't have a source of water i.e. no Columbia, no rain, no snow pack, no water from the Colorado, then all the conservation in the world won't help if there's nothing to conserve. If there are sources I'm not familiar with that can keep us going then great, but water reclamation, desal plants at such high energy costs, are not the answer for 35 million people/agriculture in the middle and southern parts of California. We need fresh water and if rain doesn't bring it, then I think the economy here is going to go bust.

[Wilson502]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

It's great So Cal is trying to conserve. I live in So Cal and I shower about once every four days (my poor wife )no, just kidding it's not that bad but I don't sweat so I can get away with it. I do more frequently take half-showers where I just wash the bottom half (where it counts ) so I'm doing my part to conserve.

But this situation is like a blading man spreading his strands further and further apart as more hair disappears. If we don't have a source of water i.e. no Columbia, no rain, no snow pack, no water from the Colorado, then all the conservation in the world won't help if there's nothing to conserve. If there are sources I'm not familiar with that can keep us going then great, but water reclamation, desal plants at such high energy costs, are not the answer for 35 million people/agriculture in the middle and southern parts of California. We need fresh water and if rain doesn't bring it, then I think the economy here is going to go bust.

Well putting 20+ million ppl in an arid part of the CA where you depend heavily on imported water is completely unsustainable in the first place. There are many exciting developments coming for desal that will significantly lower the energy requirements, and if the state really wanted to start building desal plants to provide sufficient water it could (state could expand solar and windfarms to provide energy to these plants). Problem is NIMBYism, and the enormous amounts of BS red tape stops that from happening by blocking those projects. Besides, with the amount of money that bondoogle rail project is projected to cost (projected to cost many times what voters voted for) spending a few billion instead on desal to provide sufficient drinking water doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Wilson502

Well putting 20+ million ppl in an arid part of the CA where you depend heavily on imported water is completely unsustainable in the first place. There are many exciting developments coming for desal that will significantly lower the energy requirements, and if the state really wanted to start building desal plants to provide sufficient water it could (state could expand solar and windfarms to provide energy to these plants). Problem is NIMBYism, and the enormous amounts of BS red tape stops that from happening by blocking those projects. Besides, with the amount of money that bondoogle rail project is projected to cost (projected to cost many times what voters voted for) spending a few billion instead on desal to provide sufficient drinking water doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

No. The problem is NOT NIMBYism. The problem is what you said in your first sentence.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by California831

Ahah I know about water treatment more than anyone else on this board....

Speaking of hubris...

What are your credentials?

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Wells5

... How about a giant project to take water from the Mississippi below New Orleans (600,000 cubic feet/sec) or its Atchafalaya distributary and sending it to the parched southwest?

I'd rather see a giant project to take excess population in the parched southwest & send them to the Atchafalaya distributary.