[robr2]

Originally Posted by longviewJoe

Interesting to me that the pool size limit thing went into effect so fast! Plus, is that really the best answer!?


It seems like it would be easier to just charge excessively for high water users. If a rich guy wants a huge pool why should I care? Just charge him a TON for his water usage to help pay for replacing what he uses. Putting a new law, banning certain size pools, means more guv employees to enforce the ban.

High water prices or fines aren't going to stop a rich person from using too much water. I recently saw a piece on a water district in the LA area that was fining people like Sylvester Stallone, one of the Kardashians, Kevin Hart for using more than their allotment of water. They just pay the fine - it's like us normal folks eating at Panera. What really works is that after 4 months of fines, the water district puts a restrictor in place limiting flow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/n...water-wasters/

^^ Not the piece I saw.

[longviewJoe]

Originally Posted by robr2

High water prices or fines aren't going to stop a rich person from using too much water. I recently saw a piece on a water district in the LA area that was fining people like Sylvester Stallone, one of the Kardashians, Kevin Hart for using more than their allotment of water. They just pay the fine - it's like us normal folks eating at Panera. What really works is that after 4 months of fines, the water district puts a restrictor in place limiting flow.

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/n...water-wasters/

^^ Not the piece I saw.

I am just saying charge them enough that it actually pays for the water they use. That is, to build desal plants, pipe water in, etc.... Not so much a fine as it is unsubsidized water.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Monello

Run water pipes alongside the interstate highways. Move water from flood prone areas to the drier regions. I'm sure people were skeptical at first when the interstate roads were proposed. Same with this idea. Given enough time and money, it can be accomplished. The sooner they get it started, the quicker it will be operational.

Nice thing about using the Interstate Highway System (IHS) is that it's "free" from having to pay private land owners to let water pipes, or fiber optic communication cables, cross over, under, or across their land. Railroads are also an option, i.e., one "landlord" to deal with from Chicago to L.A., or any stretch in-between. The NIMBYs might try to fight these things but their arguments against using the IHS and railroads would have little standing in court.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Monello

Run water pipes alongside the interstate highways. Move water from flood prone areas to the drier regions.

I'm sure people were skeptical at first when the interstate roads were proposed. Same with this idea. Given enough time and money, it can be accomplished. The sooner they get it started, the quicker it will be operational.

So would the LVVWD be footing the bill for a 2,000 mile pipeline from upper midwest?

It would probably be cheaper to build a pipeline from the Pacific to LV and desalinate it there.

[BBMW]

Right our way isn't the problem. The big sources of water are on the east side of the Rockies, the need for it is n the west side. So it would have to go over or through the mountains. That isn't practical.

Originally Posted by Monello

Run water pipes alongside the interstate highways. Move water from flood prone areas to the drier regions.

I'm sure people were skeptical at first when the interstate roads were proposed. Same with this idea. Given enough time and money, it can be accomplished. The sooner they get it started, the quicker it will be operational.

[cunningja]

Fox5 Vegas just had an article on this:

Currently the Las Vegas valley is the smallest user of water from the lake.

Three states and the country of Mexico uses water from the lake. Mack explained they all get a different allocation, a legal entitlement.

“California, it gets the largest share. 4.4 million acre-feet of water is available to California. Arizona gets about 2.8 million acre-feet. The country of Mexico, 1.5 million and us right here in Southern Nevada we get 300,000 acre-feet,” Mack said.

In the the Bureau of Reclamation’s water use report, it breaks down the exact numbers each entity consumed in 2021.

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Right our way isn't the problem. The big sources of water are on the east side of the Rockies, the need for it is n the west side. So it would have to go over or through the mountains. That isn't practical.

Musk might disagree with you.

[BBMW]

Let him actually try and bore a tunnel all the way under there.

Originally Posted by Tek_Freek

Musk might disagree with you.

[robr2]

I wish I kept a link to an article I read this week. Some details that stuck in my mind

The amount of electricity needed to pump all that Mississippi River water over the Rockets would require multiple new power plants

the number/size of pipelines would be dramatic.

I calculated that it would require over 1000 pipelines the size of the Alaska pipeline to supply Nevada alone:

287,000 acre feet per year
X
325,815 gallons in an acre foot
=
93.5 billion gallons annually
/ 42 gallons per barrel
=
2.26 billion barrels annually
/
2.14 million gallon capacity of Alaska pipeline
=
1056 pipelines needed..

[BBMW]

^
There's just no way moving water across the Rockies in practical. Moving water from the Pacific Northwest could be. But it's still not likely viable. In the end everyone is going to have to deal with desalination, even if the federal government has to ram it down California's throat.