The future of water policy

[Travis]

California is about to embark on a new $14 billion water project involving two 11 meter diameter tunnels 40 miles long underneath the expansive marshy delta region.

This is the first in what might be expected to be numerous projects to address the growing issues over water reliability in the ever growing Southern California region. While SoCal continues to grow with the Los Angeles region expected to hit 35 million+ people sometime in the next half century reliable water is a must. But with recent climate.....um changes the once reliable snowpack of the Sierra Nevada just ain't what it used to be.

Because of this huge changes to the already vast infrastructure that delivers water from Northern California south will be needed.

But what about a larger picture? In the very long run there will be huge water issues not just in California but all over the West. What will happen when the Ogallala aquifer is depleted? Will the ultimate answer be to divert water from large Canadian rivers south? How much might all this cost? Would the Canadians even be willing to do this for any price?

And just how mature are desalination plant technologies? That gets brought up in California discussions but the idea is usually laughed at as many still think of it as Sci-Fi wishful thinking. In California it might be so as the huge energy demand might be a killer considering the state's current ridiculous energy policy is "no new power plants of any type."

 

[WildCat]

Simple, move to where the water is.

Sam Kinison knew that 28 years ago...

 

[GeeMack]

Simple, move to where the water is.

Sam Kinison knew that 28 years ago...

Sure, that's easy for you to say Mr. Lives-Next-Door-To-Lake-Michigan. Just don't pee in the river, eh? Someone in Peoria has to drink that!

 

[Beerina]

Well, as others have pointed out, it's a problem of your own making from choosing to live in a desert.


Also, keep in mind only something like 11% of water in California is used in the house (this is why limit discs, low-flow toilets, and so on are idiotic -- you save maybe 2%, total, thus pushing off the need for growth...by a year or so.) Best to just get on with it and enjoy slightly more water use. See also idiocy under Carter telling you to lower your AC from 95 all the way down to...76 instead of 74. Do all that work, then sweat a little bit because you can.


But the vast majority is used watering literally a giant desert region so we in the north can have vegetables in winter.



Have I said thanks? Thanks!

 

[Horatius]

Will the ultimate answer be to divert water from large Canadian rivers south? How much might all this cost? Would the Canadians even be willing to do this for any price?

Make us an offer. Just make sure it allows us all to relocate to either Florida or San Diego as we see fit...

 

[Baylor]

Make us an offer. Just make sure it allows us all to relocate to either Florida or San Diego as we see fit...

Are you sure you want to move to Florida? Didn't you see my State with the Worst Drivers thread.

 

[Furcifer]

Well, as others have pointed out, it's a problem of your own making from choosing to live in a desert.


Also, keep in mind only something like 11% of water in California is used in the house (this is why limit discs, low-flow toilets, and so on are idiotic -- you save maybe 2%, total, thus pushing off the need for growth...by a year or so.) Best to just get on with it and enjoy slightly more water use. See also idiocy under Carter telling you to lower your AC from 95 all the way down to...76 instead of 74. Do all that work, then sweat a little bit because you can.


But the vast majority is used watering literally a giant desert region so we in the north can have vegetables in winter.



Have I said thanks? Thanks!

I just disowned you elsewhere in the forum but alas, we're friends again here.

Seriously though as someone who has grown up in "climate extremes" I guess I'm just used to not being entitled to "consistent weather". It rains in the the Spring and it snows in the Winter. I put up with it because it means living beside the World's largest reserve of fresh water. I endure -40F Winters because in the Summer I get 2 months of "California weather". 2 months a year.
"Climate change" means California get's an extra month of Mexico weather and all of a sudden we have to drop what we're doing and rush to their aid because they can't handle it.
The climate is warming, but let's imagine it wasn't. Let's say it was changing to the extent that California had to endure Michigan weather. OMG, can you imagine, they'd lose their minds. "I have to buy a coat? What's Thinsolate^tm? I can't eat my granola wearing that."

California is what it is because up until now it had extremely mild weather. While you were sucking at Mother Nature's teat the rest of us were building this country (continent) brick by brick, roll of steel by roll of steel, car by car 24/7 365.

Now you have to pay $14 Billion for water? So what? Were you sending us money when we were paying $10 Billion a year on oil JUST TO KEEP US FROM FREEZING TO DEATH?

There's plenty of fresh water and land here in the Great Lakes region. And guess what? It's cheap. There hasn't been a " housing bubble" here yet. I'm guessing, but I bet a $150K house in "Sunny" California 20 years ago is worth about $600K now. And a $150K house in Lansing is worth about $150K today if the owner is lucky. He, perhaps Beerina himself, didn't get rich buying a house near a constant supply of fresh water. No, he probably got his taxes increased so the guy that made $450K on his home purchase, and doesn't even know what a "snow blower" is, can have the Federal government subsidize a $14B water project.

Face it, California is all worried about "climate change", when the rest of us have been dealing with "the climate", the actual climate, for our entire lives.

But yah, as I've said before, if California wants snow for Sierra Nevada the solution is simple, everyone in California get in their SUV this February and head East. Fill it up with as much snow as you can take off the mid-west's driveways and head back home. Take as much as you want. Don't be shy.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

You should go and live in Scotland. It never doesnt rain in Scotland.

 

[Travis]

I just disowned you elsewhere in the forum but alas, we're friends again here.

Seriously though as someone who has grown up in "climate extremes" I guess I'm just used to not being entitled to "consistent weather". It rains in the the Spring and it snows in the Winter. I put up with it because it means living beside the World's largest reserve of fresh water. I endure -40F Winters because in the Summer I get 2 months of "California weather". 2 months a year.
"Climate change" means California get's an extra month of Mexico weather and all of a sudden we have to drop what we're doing and rush to their aid because they can't handle it.
The climate is warming, but let's imagine it wasn't. Let's say it was changing to the extent that California had to endure Michigan weather. OMG, can you imagine, they'd lose their minds. "I have to buy a coat? What's Thinsolate^tm? I can't eat my granola wearing that."

California is what it is because up until now it had extremely mild weather. While you were sucking at Mother Nature's teat the rest of us were building this country (continent) brick by brick, roll of steel by roll of steel, car by car 24/7 365.

Are you saying California has just been some sort of parasite that the rest of the country has been subsidizing?

Now you have to pay $14 Billion for water? So what? Were you sending us money when we were paying $10 Billion a year on oil JUST TO KEEP US FROM FREEZING TO DEATH?

Actually California was sending you money. California sent way more money east in taxes than it ever got back. You're welcome.

And you should try living in California without air conditioning. Actually I take that back as you can't do it. When it gets to be 120F outside, as it will often do in the summer, air conditioning is a matter of life or death. I guess it is a good thing then that California leads the nation in energy efficient air conditioning.

There's plenty of fresh water and land here in the Great Lakes region. And guess what? It's cheap.

Of course it is cheap. Who wants to live someplace with no economic future? Places like California and Texas are growing because that is where the jobs are.

There hasn't been a " housing bubble" here yet. I'm guessing, but I bet a $150K house in "Sunny" California 20 years ago is worth about $600K now. And a $150K house in Lansing is worth about $150K today if the owner is lucky. He, perhaps Beerina himself, didn't get rich buying a house near a constant supply of fresh water. No, he probably got his taxes increased so the guy that made $450K on his home purchase, and doesn't even know what a "snow blower" is, can have the Federal government subsidize a $14B water project.

What is with this venom? Bad east coaster. We take back the internet we gave you in retribution!

And snow blowers are sold rather frequently around where I live. The Sierra Nevada does get more snow than any other mountain range in the world. Or at least it used to.

Face it, California is all worried about "climate change", when the rest of us have been dealing with "the climate", the actual climate, for our entire lives.

Oh it is so nice to know we never had a climate that can kill before.

 

[Rolfe]

You should go and live in Scotland. It never doesnt rain in Scotland.

Plenty water, we have. Buyer to collect.

I stayed with a friend in Lansing a few years ago, in the autumn. It changed from lovely to rainy while I was there. I thought the nice days were perfect, but my hostess complained of a chill in the air.

People had outdoor swimming pools. Not many of them in Scotland. I suspect the summers might even be a bit hot for my taste. On the other hand the winters seem to be extreme. My hostess and her husband were in the habit of moving to Hawaii from January to March.

I suspect I'd love it there (Michigan, I mean). I suspect I'd get used to the hot summers and the cold winters, and the degree of contrast boggles my mind. I don't fancy California much, because of the lack of contrast, and basically much too hot some of the time.

I love the contrast in Scotland. And, it's not too extreme. We're not often actually snowed in. It's just - the last half-dozen summers have been unusually cool and rainy. The usual few weeks of mostly-nice just haven't happened. I'm looking at clouds with occasional sunny moments and some heavy downpours right now.

But I have two weeks in Corfu booked next month that should be enough to give me skin cancer, and as for water, we just have a small dam on the river in the hills above the village, connected to our taps. We are certainly not going to die of thirst!

Rolfe.

 

[Furcifer]

Are you saying California has just been some sort of parasite that the rest of the country has been subsidizing?

Probably, although I'm not all that familiar with the US. I know here in Canada BC is. Aside from Ontario and Alberta most provinces don't pull their weight.

Actually California was sending you money. California sent way more money east in taxes than it ever got back. You're welcome.

Doubtful. The numbers don't add up. Perhaps you mean on a per capita basis?

And you should try living in California without air conditioning. Actually I take that back as you can't do it. When it gets to be 120F outside, as it will often do in the summer, air conditioning is a matter of life or death. I guess it is a good thing then that California leads the nation in energy efficient air conditioning.

My point, and this is obviously not directed at you Travis, is that if you don't want to run an air conditioner all year round move to North Dakota. People get tired of shoveling snow around here, they don't beg the feds to put in heated sidewalks, they move south.

Of course it is cheap. Who wants to live someplace with no economic future? Places like California and Texas are growing because that is where the jobs are.

That would change if people were forced to move. There are some industries that can't be moved, mining for instance. But what about Hollywood, why does that industry have to be in California? Move that to Arkansas and free up all the water they use for farming.
This is over simplified but I hope you see the point.

What is with this venom? Bad east coaster. We take back the internet we gave you in retribution!

Earth first buddy. The policy should be to move settlements to more efficient areas before making massive changes to the ecosystem. Urban planning on a massive scale. IMO.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

People in this thread have... unrealistic ideas. Why bother trying to solve a resource management problem when we can just blame someone else? It is certainly pithy to say "don't build your city in a below sea level bay", but it is entirely useless.

 

[ehcks]

How much does desalination cost?

Am I underthinking it with my idea of tanks of water in greenhouses and pumping the air to a condenser?

ETA: Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_Greenhouse but that's still more complicated than I was thinking.

 

[Travis]

Are you saying California has just been some sort of parasite that the rest of the country has been subsidizing?

Probably, although I'm not all that familiar with the US. I know here in Canada BC is. Aside from Ontario and Alberta most provinces don't pull their weight.

Well you are wrong. California has a GDP of $1.9 trillion or a full 13% of the total US GDP while the population only accounts for about 9% of the US total. So California has an economy that is larger than all of Canada. In fact, if it were its own country, it would have the worlds ninth largest economy overall.

California sent way more money east in taxes than it ever got back. You're welcome.

Doubtful. The numbers don't add up. Perhaps you mean on a per capita basis?

Well you are wrong, again. Here are the numbers:

California paid $4.2 trillion between 1990-2009 in federal taxes while only getting back $3.9 trillion in Federal spending. So $300 billion was distributed to the rest of the country.

My point, and this is obviously not directed at you Travis, is that if you don't want to run an air conditioner all year round move to North Dakota. People get tired of shoveling snow around here, they don't beg the feds to put in heated sidewalks, they move south.

When someone demands air conditioned sidewalks let me know.

Of course North Dakota gets those tornadoes and floods which everyone ends up paying for.

That would change if people were forced to move. There are some industries that can't be moved, mining for instance. But what about Hollywood, why does that industry have to be in California? Move that to Arkansas and free up all the water they use for farming.
This is over simplified but I hope you see the point.

The movie industry is based in California because California has numerous natural environments that can double for almost anyplace in the world. So it makes sense for Hollywood to be located there. The aerospace and computer industries are located there because of the presence of numerous universities that support them.

And you might be interested to know that the vast majority of the water used in California is used by farming. In fact over 50% of the water to be moved in this new project is intended for agriculture use. People tend to forget that California is the leading agriculture economy in the USA (and would be the worlds fifth largest supplier of agricultural commodities if it were an independent nation) with many products almost exclusively farmed within.

Earth first buddy. The policy should be to move settlements to more efficient areas before making massive changes to the ecosystem. Urban planning on a massive scale. IMO.

And who pays for this? I mean they talked about relocating New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina but that talk quickly went away when the pricetag of $100+ billion for such an endeavor was realized.

Los Angeles, the worlds third largest city economy, would be way more expensive to relocate than New Orleans.

 

[Furcifer]

Well you are wrong. California has a GDP of $1.9 trillion or a full 13% of the total US GDP while the population only accounts for about 9% of the US total. So California has an economy that is larger than all of Canada. In fact, if it were its own country, it would have the worlds ninth largest economy overall.

It should, California has about 4 million more people than Canada. Legally, I bet there's another 4 million not on the books making less than minimum wage contributing to the GDP.

Well you are wrong, again. Here are the numbers:

California paid $4.2 trillion between 1990-2009 in federal taxes while only getting back $3.9 trillion in Federal spending. So $300 billion was distributed to the rest of the country.

No I'm not wrong. That's just a small portion of the collected revenue for that time. You're talking per capita.

When someone demands air conditioned sidewalks let me know.

So you're saying it's OK to demand the federal government prevent brown outs during the summer in California because people want AC, but screw Deluth for even thinking about demanding more than their fair share for convenience in the Winter.

A little lopsided isn't it?

Of course North Dakota gets those tornadoes and floods which everyone ends up paying for.

No that's usually covered by private insurance unless a state of emergency is declared. There are earthquakes in California you know.

The movie industry is based in California because California has numerous natural environments that can double for almost anyplace in the world. So it makes sense for Hollywood to be located there. The aerospace and computer industries are located there because of the presence of numerous universities that support them.

Really? California has a lot of natural "green rooms" does it?

It's there because it's nice and that's where people want to live, if the cost of living went through the roof because the actual costs were realized it would move.

And you might be interested to know that the vast majority of the water used in California is used by farming. In fact over 50% of the water to be moved in this new project is intended for agriculture use. People tend to forget that California is the leading agriculture economy in the USA (and would be the worlds fifth largest supplier of agricultural commodities if it were an independent nation) with many products almost exclusively farmed within.

All the more reason to move industry that could be moved elsewhere.

And who pays for this? I mean they talked about relocating New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina but that talk quickly went away when the pricetag of $100+ billion for such an endeavor was realized.

Los Angeles, the worlds third largest city economy, would be way more expensive to relocate than New Orleans.

It's paid for by the people living in that area by way of taxes. State, not federal. Until the cost of a gallon of water in Arizona is realized I don't think anyone will move to Fargo. Start collecting $1 per gallon, or the realized cost of water in Arizona and only then will people start to consider putting up with Winter in ND.

People are lazy, and from what I gather these measures are just catering to the laziest of people. They should pay, and pay through the nose. Water is essential and despite, who was it Roosevelt?, it's not a "right".

 

[Travis]

No I'm not wrong. That's just a small portion of the collected revenue for that time. You're talking per capita.

This statement of yours is not even wrong. I'm not even sure what you are arguing.

So you're saying it's OK to demand the federal government prevent brown outs during the summer in California because people want AC, but screw Deluth for even thinking about demanding more than their fair share for convenience in the Winter.

Where did I say that? California can generate its own electricity if it needs to (and it needs to).

No that's usually covered by private insurance unless a state of emergency is declared. There are earthquakes in California you know.

And emergencies get declared a lot. And I don't mind. That's the point.

And yes we do get earthquakes on occasion. Of course the last one that required federal help was in 1994. To help mitigate this California has the strictest building codes in the country which makes building anything much more expensive.

All the more reason to move industry that could be moved elsewhere.

You can't just move agriculture. Maybe you should look into why we irrigate the deserts of California. It has something to do with the unique conditions for exceptionally productive farmland if they can have water.

Besides most of the worlds arable land is already devoted to agriculture. So...move it where?

It's paid for by the people living in that area by way of taxes. State, not federal. Until the cost of a gallon of water in Arizona is realized I don't think anyone will move to Fargo. Start collecting $1 per gallon, or the realized cost of water in Arizona and only then will people start to consider putting up with Winter in ND.

My mom lived in Arizona. Water is insanely expensive there. Water is also expensive in California. My water bill last month was just about $300. And that's after I spent a good amount of money to convert my entire house into low water use appliances and toilets.

People are lazy, and from what I gather these measures are just catering to the laziest of people. They should pay, and pay through the nose. Water is essential and despite, who was it Roosevelt?, it's not a "right".

Right. We're "lazy." It's not like anyone actually works for a living out here.

 

[Furcifer]

Where did I say that? California can generate its own electricity if it needs to (and it needs to).

It was rhetorical.

And emergencies get declared a lot. And I don't mind. That's the point.

And yes we do get earthquakes on occasion. Of course the last one that required federal help was in 1994. To help mitigate this California has the strictest building codes in the country which makes building anything much more expensive.

Emissions as well. And rightfully so.

You can't just move agriculture. Maybe you should look into why we irrigate the deserts of California. It has something to do with the unique conditions for exceptionally productive farmland if they can have water.

That's the point. They didn't for a reason, and then they did and now they don't. But now they don't and people seem to think they should. It's entitlement.

Besides most of the worlds arable land is already devoted to agriculture. So...move it where?

Like I said, some things can't be moved.

My mom lived in Arizona. Water is insanely expensive there. Water is also expensive in California. My water bill last month was just about $300. And that's after I spent a good amount of money to convert my entire house into low water use appliances and toilets.

Do you have a grass lawn? Does your neighbor? I'm betting they do and for what reason? I don't see how we can talk seriously about "water policy" when people are pouring it on their property for useless aesthetics.

Can you see my point? There's a lingering sense of entitlement, people feel entitled to a house with a nice green lawn even though they live in a desert or an area with depleted natural reserves. This type of thinking is what needs to change first in my opinion.

Right. We're "lazy." It's not like anyone actually works for a living out here.

No you're missing the point. California is over populated because people want to live in that climate. But it's artificial, it's been made liveable and now that it isn't, or can't sustain the population why do we need to build infrastructure instead of saying "Too bad, move to Wisconsin".

It's proving inefficient and uneconomical to have these large populations in California, and from what I can tell they're really only there because they don't want to be in Green Bay. Something isn't right when a home in say, San Diego is "worth" 5 times more than the same home in Minneapolis. They don't suffer from brown outs and have plenty of water. I'd guess the skin cancer rate is much lower as well. The fact is what is essential to life is probably more abundant in Minneapolis than it is in San Diego and yet the housing costs don't seem to reflect it.

Then again maybe it isn't. I'm talking out of my ass here so bear with me as I try to make a point. But there really needs to be some study on sustainability in certain areas so that we can plan our cities more efficiently. In the past they popped up based on the natural features of the land. Today it's based on the infrastructure. If you want to solve the water issue in California I'm guessing nuclear power plants and high speed rail in Missouri might be the more feasible and sustainable way than bringing more water to the desert.

 

[BowlOfRed]

California is over populated because people want to live in that climate.

Too simplistic. I am not here because of the weather. (I think it's too cold).

 

[EHocking]

How much does desalination cost?

Am I underthinking it with my idea of tanks of water in greenhouses and pumping the air to a condenser?

ETA: Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_Greenhouse but that's still more complicated than I was thinking.

A similar approach on a smaller scale was promoted some years ago to aid those in developing countries clean their (non marine) water at a household or village level. The "transport" mechanism was merely wicking up hessian cloth into the distilling "chamber".

As simple as you can get.

And recycling. Why this preference for desalination when recycling water is cheaper and easier?

From what I gather, recycling water is up to 50% cheaper in energy use, than desalination. Even if recycled water was used for non-potable purposes, surely there is an advantage here?

It seems that one of the main drivers for desalination plants vs recycling is the "ick" factor from people wrt potable water from a recycling process (as evidenced by an US authority draining an 8million gallon reservoir because someone (was seen to have) pissed in it).

Apparently, at least in Australia, the general public are slowly getting over this "ick" factor - probably due to the fact that the Aussies actually know about drought conditions and seem to be realising that desalination is not

Oh, and if you are in a landlocked country or state, desalination plants are pretty useless.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Plenty water, we have. Buyer to collect.

I like the old Scottish joke that goes "Skye is really pretty when its not raining" How. we. laughed.

Seriously though, even though its always raining on Skye, it is nevertheless, breathtaking.