Well the first issue is the energy source for the desalination plant. If you burn fossil fuels, you're making things worse.

Aesma wrote:

Well the first issue is the energy source for the desalination plant. If you burn fossil fuels, you're making things worse.

Ours in Sydney is powered by renewables, including from wind turbines. Ironically. It was heavily damaged by a mini-tornado a few years ago and barely back on line during the worst of our most recent drought.

Pi7472000 wrote:

Sad and scary to see the uncontrolled development in the Southwest. We will need to restrict development in human caused climate change areas. We will see millions of climate refugees from the Southwest by 2100. It seems the Great Lakes region will be the best region to be in by the end of the century. We need to move off fossil fuels and limit car ownership which is changing the climate and weather patterns. We also need to promote a one child family.

But the migrants streaming over our southern border don't hold to a one child family.

Kent350787 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Given that CA just announced a massive budget surplus, one of the big items for Sacramento is investing in water desalination plants along the coast (namely in the SoCal region). If there's excess production, it can sell some to AZ and NV so that those states also benefit. If both states want a constant supply, have them chip in to the effort.

I recall watching a documentary on the issues of water extraction from the Colorado and the problems it caused. It was in junior high school geography here in Australia and IIRC we were discussing balancing environmental needs.

The doco on the catastrophic issues facing agriculture in the SW was "Where did the Colorado go?" released in 1976. Clearly changing climate is just making things even worse.

Desal is a good if high cost option for drinking water. My city of Sydney has a desal plant to supplement dams, and IIRC the cost of the water out of the desal plant is around twice that of other sources. It really isn't a workable option for broadscale agriculture.

We could just take the position that having access to potable water is a Constitutional right, and so have the Federal Govt. insure, (by Federal spending) that every American has that, wherever they choose to live.

Aesma wrote:

Well the first issue is the energy source for the desalination plant. If you burn fossil fuels, you're making things worse.

Well, we're not talking about climate change here; we're talking about dealing with drought conditions. At this point, the SW is simply too overpopulated and putting a strain on the ecosystem. Even if the entire area goes green, efforts to mitigate and reverse the effects will take decades if not centuries. So we're talking about supplementing the water supply from an already strained ecosystem.

And as Kent350787 alluded to, there ARE ways to power it that don't rely exclusively on fossil fuels, and if fossil fuel is the only economic alternative, efforts can be made to offset it elsewhere (perhaps by expanding solar and wind farms to produce the same capacity of energy and power other facilities instead).

The bigger effect is the brine discharge, but reading up on it, there ARE chemicals you can extract from brine, which could open another market for CA.

Kent350787 wrote:

It really isn't a workable option for broadscale agriculture.

Perhaps not, but potable water can still be a workaround. Leave agriculture to use whatever's left of the Colorado river and supply homes with water from desal plants. At some point, consumers will have to make a choice: if they don't want the plants, they can live in SW and suffer through water rationing or they can move back east where droughts of this scale are rare. That's why it would be ideal if various states contribute to the project: more plants can be built and cost can be spread out.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Well the first issue is the energy source for the desalination plant. If you burn fossil fuels, you're making things worse.

Well, we're not talking about climate change here; we're talking about dealing with drought conditions. At this point, the SW is simply too overpopulated and putting a strain on the ecosystem. Even if the entire area goes green, efforts to mitigate and reverse the effects will take decades if not centuries. So we're talking about supplementing the water supply from an already strained ecosystem.

And as Kent350787 alluded to, there ARE ways to power it that don't rely exclusively on fossil fuels, and if fossil fuel is the only economic alternative, efforts can be made to offset it elsewhere (perhaps by expanding solar and wind farms to produce the same capacity of energy and power other facilities instead).

The bigger effect is the brine discharge, but reading up on it, there ARE chemicals you can extract from brine, which could open another market for CA.

Kent350787 wrote:

It really isn't a workable option for broadscale agriculture.

Perhaps not, but potable water can still be a workaround. Leave agriculture to use whatever's left of the Colorado river and supply homes with water from desal plants. At some point, consumers will have to make a choice: if they don't want the plants, they can live in SW and suffer through water rationing or they can move back east where droughts of this scale are rare. That's why it would be ideal if various states contribute to the project: more plants can be built and cost can be spread out.

I really don't disagree that there is value in pushing supply up to a level that is able to fund and be flexible. Electricity came immediately to mind, and the experience of San Antonio versus the rest of Texas.

There are ways that desal can work, but it requires clear choices, and has obvious costs. Sydney built its plant as it decided the environmental cost of new dams was too high, yet they were built when the city's population was around 1/3 its current level. It was a drought proofing strategy though, not regular ongoing supply, and has been idling for much of its life.

Australia, with its Murray-Darling system, faces some of the same issues as the SW USA, although extraction is primarily for agriculture - apart from Adelaide, South Australia (don't drink the tap water, as it's near the mouth of the river system). It's why that 1976 doco (I think I watched it around 78 or 79) rang so true. Our system has been badly managed, and vested agribusiness interests continue to cruel reform. But we do have regular years where actual volume delivered to irrigators is zero.

Rice used to be a thriving and world leading productivity industry in our Riverina irrigation area, but has had zero allocations for most of the last two decades. They have sought to transfer production to tropical regions, although productivity per hectare has fallen.

The megadrought currently choking the western United States is the worst drought in the region in more than 1,000 years. It's having an enormous impact across many states and on several major reservoirs including Lake Mead, a water source for millions of people in the West. Alex Hager, who covers the Colorado River Basin for Northern Colorado Public Radio, joins Geoff Bennett to discuss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUiXzDkK5ms

einsteinboricua wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Well the first issue is the energy source for the desalination plant. If you burn fossil fuels, you're making things worse.

Well, we're not talking about climate change here; we're talking about dealing with drought conditions. At this point, the SW is simply too overpopulated and putting a strain on the ecosystem. Even if the entire area goes green, efforts to mitigate and reverse the effects will take decades if not centuries. So we're talking about supplementing the water supply from an already strained ecosystem.

And as Kent350787 alluded to, there ARE ways to power it that don't rely exclusively on fossil fuels, and if fossil fuel is the only economic alternative, efforts can be made to offset it elsewhere (perhaps by expanding solar and wind farms to produce the same capacity of energy and power other facilities instead).

The bigger effect is the brine discharge, but reading up on it, there ARE chemicals you can extract from brine, which could open another market for CA.

Kent350787 wrote:

It really isn't a workable option for broadscale agriculture.

Perhaps not, but potable water can still be a workaround. Leave agriculture to use whatever's left of the Colorado river and supply homes with water from desal plants. At some point, consumers will have to make a choice: if they don't want the plants, they can live in SW and suffer through water rationing or they can move back east where droughts of this scale are rare. That's why it would be ideal if various states contribute to the project: more plants can be built and cost can be spread out.

If drought conditions are due to less rain, then surely rainfall is part of climate and is changing.

LCD.... surely we will stumble in that direction,not only with water. I don't particularly want a blank check for flood insurance if someone wants to live ON the beach. I live in earthquake country and pay a fair amount for that kind of insurance. The federal government in effect does subsidize infrastructure, crops, and the gods know what else. Government actually does insurance well, but it needs a lot of structural reformation and move to better actuary foundations. Incidentally Social Security and Medicare are well structured, but need some adjustments.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Given that CA just announced a massive budget surplus, one of the big items for Sacramento is investing in water desalination plants along the coast (namely in the SoCal region). If there's excess production, it can sell some to AZ and NV so that those states also benefit. If both states want a constant supply, have them chip in to the effort.

I recall watching a documentary on the issues of water extraction from the Colorado and the problems it caused. It was in junior high school geography here in Australia and IIRC we were discussing balancing environmental needs.

The doco on the catastrophic issues facing agriculture in the SW was "Where did the Colorado go?" released in 1976. Clearly changing climate is just making things even worse.

Desal is a good if high cost option for drinking water. My city of Sydney has a desal plant to supplement dams, and IIRC the cost of the water out of the desal plant is around twice that of other sources. It really isn't a workable option for broadscale agriculture.

We could just take the position that having access to potable water is a Constitutional right, and so have the Federal Govt. insure, (by Federal spending) that every American has that, wherever they choose to live.

The amount of water that is used in homes and for drinking is a tiny fraction of the water available. Most fresh water is used for agriculture and industrial uses, however I have to attack California, I was watching the Blue Jays play the Angels on Sunday and why the heck do you have a waterfall over the outfield fence in an area that is in perpetual drought. This isn't going to solve the problem but optics do matter and things like waterfalls and fountains are nice but should not be in places that don't have water and neither should grass that has to survive by artificial watering of it.

This is for another thread but if the US has this mandate added to the constitution has this and it prevents another Flint then I'm all for it. Ironically one of the places that doesn't have safe drinking water is in probably the most water rich states in the US.

StarAC17 wrote:

The amount of water that is used in homes and for drinking is a tiny fraction of the water available. Most fresh water is used for agriculture and industrial uses, however I have to attack California, I was watching the Blue Jays play the Angels on Sunday and why the heck do you have a waterfall over the outfield fence in an area that is in perpetual drought. This isn't going to solve the problem but optics do matter and things like waterfalls and fountains are nice but should not be in places that don't have water and neither should grass that has to survive by artificial watering of it.

That waterfall at Angel Stadium is 23 years old (stadium remodel completed in 1999 IIRC), and like most water features, recycles its water, at least for the season. I agree it's not a good look, but it's making a mountain out of a molehill. The Bellagio fountains in Vegas are much worse.

StarAC17 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Perhaps another title can better fit the post and link. It was, I think The New Yorker which had an article on this about a year ago. It is becoming obvious that there may be enough water for one of the two lakes. Precipitation is not expected to improve according to current climate science. All of the major players in this are aware that there is no water to fill treaty allocations. So in a very real sense there is no war. As ever there are those, who in the face of all the facts, are believers that there really is enough water. Sad.

I have spent a large portion of my life in the Southwest. I am amazed at the amount of water used for landscape. Why in the world do people in Phoenix need grass in their front lawn? Heck, use artificial turf for the back yard, no need to cut it. You could remove a good chunk of the stress for water if people who live in the desert landscaped like they live in the desert. Tucson, Arizona and the folks who live there have actually made pretty decent strides with this concept, they are not perfect, but they are trying.

The idea of Golf in the Southwest is ridiculous and while there are much larger factors of where the water goes (primarily agriculture) I have seen some of the most extravagant wasting of water in LA when the sprinklers were on a golf course at 2pm when the temperature was in the high 90's. I am sure the same happens in Arizona and Nevada with courses there.

Where I live in the Toronto area where we have more than enough water you will never see a golf course run its sprinklers in the middle of the day. Especially not in the height of summer when we actually have a dry year.

That doesn't happen in Nevada, I know Nevada (meaning Vegas) are an easy target to aim at, but as I mentioned above, we are using less water now than we were 20 years ago, even with a couple of million more people living here, more and bigger resorts and yeah, more golf courses.

LittleFokker wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

The amount of water that is used in homes and for drinking is a tiny fraction of the water available. Most fresh water is used for agriculture and industrial uses, however I have to attack California, I was watching the Blue Jays play the Angels on Sunday and why the heck do you have a waterfall over the outfield fence in an area that is in perpetual drought. This isn't going to solve the problem but optics do matter and things like waterfalls and fountains are nice but should not be in places that don't have water and neither should grass that has to survive by artificial watering of it.

That waterfall at Angel Stadium is 23 years old (stadium remodel completed in 1999 IIRC), and like most water features, recycles its water, at least for the season. I agree it's not a good look, but it's making a mountain out of a molehill. The Bellagio fountains in Vegas are much worse.

Actually they are not. The Bellagio fountains use treated run off and ground water from a well on site, you really wouldn't want to drink it.

tmu101 wrote:

Too much rain/water/flooding in the east too dry in the west. There has to be a way to efficiently and cheaply pipe water from east to west. If oil can be piped from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico surely water can be piped across the US.

You pipe as little as you have to, you really want to use aqueducts.

johns624 wrote:

Another thing to consider is power supply. Will the low lake levels at Lake Mead and Glen Canyon affect hydro power production? With all the older retirees in the Southwest, a power outage or even brownout in a July heatwave could have catastrophic effects.

Already affecting Glen Canyon, Hoover dam is next.

luckyone wrote:

Yeah I’ve heard that argument before. But it basically amounts to depleting scarce water at a slower rate than before. It’s still depleting water faster than it would naturally replenish itself.

Except, as long as you can get enough flow, it wont, even though it at times looks huge, by volume the Colorado river is only the 37th largest river by volume in the US at 22,000 cft per sec, the Columbia is 273,000 cft per sec, the Mississippi is 593,000 cft per sec.

That's the issue with the desalinization plants, to create the amount of fresh water needed, the investment would be huge up front and only gets bigger as time goes on. Certainly any aqueduct that could carry enough water to break the drought is not going to be small and the upfront cost again huge, but, in the long run it would cost less.

tmu101 wrote:

Too much rain/water/flooding in the east too dry in the west. There has to be a way to efficiently and cheaply pipe water from east to west. If oil can be piped from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico surely water can be piped across the US.

This has been talked about but I can't see how this is done where it doesn't have a cost to the water rich areas of North America and mess up some ecosystems and agriculture out in this neck of the woods. Water in not oil, its used by every living thing and and only humans use oil.

The Great Lakes for example has a ton of water but to transport is to the southwest via pipe or aqueduct is 3000 miles over mountains and if you drop the water levels in the great lakes too much its going to affect things like shipping from the Atlantic to the Midwest. Some of the lakes such as Lake Erie are shallow and having those levels lower can do a lot to the ecosystems of these regions. Also way more people live east of the Mississippi for a reason.

Also this isn't going to fix the fact that its not raining in the southwest and while its a pleasant place to live as its not cold and perhaps supporting too many people. Having an agricultural industry that cannot be supported with nature is something that has to have a second look.

StarAC17 wrote:

tmu101 wrote:

Too much rain/water/flooding in the east too dry in the west. There has to be a way to efficiently and cheaply pipe water from east to west. If oil can be piped from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico surely water can be piped across the US.

This has been talked about but I can't see how this is done where it doesn't have a cost to the water rich areas of North America and mess up some ecosystems and agriculture out in this neck of the woods. Water in not oil, its used by every living thing and and only humans use oil.

The Great Lakes for example has a ton of water but to transport is to the southwest via pipe or aqueduct is 3000 miles over mountains and if you drop the water levels in the great lakes too much its going to affect things like shipping from the Atlantic to the Midwest. Some of the lakes such as Lake Erie are shallow and having those levels lower can do a lot to the ecosystems of these regions. Also way more people live east of the Mississippi for a reason.

Also this isn't going to fix the fact that its not raining in the southwest and while its a pleasant place to live as its not cold and perhaps supporting too many people. Having an agricultural industry that cannot be supported with nature is something that has to have a second look.

It's still absurd to me that people are suggesting that the best solution to a bad idea is to keep doing the same thing. There is not a consistently reliable water source in large swaths of the Southwest. So, because the dams and aqueducts that we already have aren't sufficient, we need more, from further away. And now we're not just talking about containing and controlling existing flows of snow melts on the Colorado, now...we need to actively take water from elsewhere because we don't think they use it--I can't imagine East Coast taxpayers will enthusiastically pony up for the cost of this. The entitlement is astonishing. I get the agricultural benefits of irrigating part of California...but now even that's not feasible to the degree it was before (they're irrigating fewer fields because they have less water), and we keep adding more people. So even if human consumption is "only" 20% or so and per person usage is lower than it used to be, it's still a problem that shouldn't be the East Coast's problem to fix. Further, I'm sure Canada will have a few things to say if we tried to start sending large quantities of water from the Great Lakes elsewhere.

luckyone wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

tmu101 wrote:

Too much rain/water/flooding in the east too dry in the west. There has to be a way to efficiently and cheaply pipe water from east to west. If oil can be piped from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico surely water can be piped across the US.

This has been talked about but I can't see how this is done where it doesn't have a cost to the water rich areas of North America and mess up some ecosystems and agriculture out in this neck of the woods. Water in not oil, its used by every living thing and and only humans use oil.

The Great Lakes for example has a ton of water but to transport is to the southwest via pipe or aqueduct is 3000 miles over mountains and if you drop the water levels in the great lakes too much its going to affect things like shipping from the Atlantic to the Midwest. Some of the lakes such as Lake Erie are shallow and having those levels lower can do a lot to the ecosystems of these regions. Also way more people live east of the Mississippi for a reason.

Also this isn't going to fix the fact that its not raining in the southwest and while its a pleasant place to live as its not cold and perhaps supporting too many people. Having an agricultural industry that cannot be supported with nature is something that has to have a second look.

It's still absurd to me that people are suggesting that the best solution to a bad idea is to keep doing the same thing. There is not a consistently reliable water source in large swaths of the Southwest. So, because the dams and aqueducts that we already have aren't sufficient, we need more, from further away. And now we're not just talking about containing and controlling existing flows of snow melts on the Colorado, now...we need to actively take water from elsewhere because we don't think they use it--I can't imagine East Coast taxpayers will enthusiastically pony up for the cost of this. The entitlement is astonishing. I get the agricultural benefits of irrigating part of California...but now even that's not feasible to the degree it was before (they're irrigating fewer fields because they have less water), and we keep adding more people. So even if human consumption is "only" 20% or so and per person usage is lower than it used to be, it's still a problem that shouldn't be the East Coast's problem to fix. Further, I'm sure Canada will have a few things to say if we tried to start sending large quantities of water from the Great Lakes elsewhere.

Trust me as a Canadian we worry that the US will take the water by force in the future as water is the 21st century's oil.

Granted the biggest source of Fresh water in North America is shared by both Canada and the US so you steal from the Great Lakes you are stealing from large swaths of Americans also. Canada has far more fresh water per capita but the US actually has more fresh water in total. Also Brazil better be ready to defend their water.

https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-know ... 37440475-1

I can't find a specific source but about 75% of water globally is used for agriculture. Of the remaining 25%, most of it is used in industrial means such as manufacturing and electricity generation. Domestic use runs in the single digits to low teens of usage.

Actually here is a good link.

https://ourworldindata.org/water-use-stress

The US (and North America in general) is one of the most inefficient nations in term domestic water usage but its still a low amount of the total usage. There is more than enough water in the southwest to fulfill municipal usage of it. When you add in all of the uses then it puts stress on the system.

The Netflix show Explained has an episode on water in season 1.

The "realistic" idea (in so far as it has actually been worked on by the US government) is to take water from the Mississippi, not the Great Lakes.

rather than having socal's (ie los angeles) rain water drain into the ocean, could more be done to have it pumped to local area reservoirs or even to lake mead so it can be used to generate power?

The expensive thing about water is usually the infrastructure and energy needed to move it. It is a heavy, and low value ($$$ basis) chemical.

hashtagconfused wrote:

rather than having socal's (ie los angeles) rain water drain into the ocean, could more be done to have it pumped to local area reservoirs or even to lake mead so it can be used to generate power?

If they can do it in their seismically active ground no reason they can't store runoff water. Arizona has been doing that. Pumping to Lake Mead sounds pricey.

luckyone wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

rather than having socal's (ie los angeles) rain water drain into the ocean, could more be done to have it pumped to local area reservoirs or even to lake mead so it can be used to generate power?

If they can do it in their seismically active ground no reason they can't store runoff water. Arizona has been doing that. Pumping to Lake Mead sounds pricey.

los angeles has area reservoirs already and there is plenty of pipelines for other things so seismic activity should have minimal impact on that. pumping to lake mead from LA would be less pricey than pumping from the great lakes or mississippi river.

hashtagconfused wrote:

luckyone wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

rather than having socal's (ie los angeles) rain water drain into the ocean, could more be done to have it pumped to local area reservoirs or even to lake mead so it can be used to generate power?

If they can do it in their seismically active ground no reason they can't store runoff water. Arizona has been doing that. Pumping to Lake Mead sounds pricey.

los angeles has area reservoirs already and there is plenty of pipelines for other things so seismic activity should have minimal impact on that. pumping to lake mead from LA would be less pricey than pumping from the great lakes or mississippi river.

Perhaps I should've been slightly more clear: Arizona is building underground storage.

hashtagconfused wrote:

luckyone wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

rather than having socal's (ie los angeles) rain water drain into the ocean, could more be done to have it pumped to local area reservoirs or even to lake mead so it can be used to generate power?

If they can do it in their seismically active ground no reason they can't store runoff water. Arizona has been doing that. Pumping to Lake Mead sounds pricey.

los angeles has area reservoirs already and there is plenty of pipelines for other things so seismic activity should have minimal impact on that. pumping to lake mead from LA would be less pricey than pumping from the great lakes or mississippi river.

One thing I have seen with those reservoirs is that if they put black balls in the reservoir to prevent evaporation.

They are called Shade Balls. (that sounds inappropriate )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_balls

"runoff water", if we're talking about rain that has fallen on buildings, streets, roads etc., then went into sewers, is heavily polluted. In fact it needs to be treated before releasing it into the ocean, and I'm sure it's not treated up to "drinking standard".

Aesma wrote:

"runoff water", if we're talking about rain that has fallen on buildings, streets, roads etc., then went into sewers, is heavily polluted. In fact it needs to be treated before releasing it into the ocean, and I'm sure it's not treated up to "drinking standard".

I believe that runoff is classified as Gray Water, It doesn't have to be to drinking standard but it could be used for irrigation, toilet flushing, domestic gardening etc.

Any LEED certified building does this in house where they usually have holding tanks to collect runoff and water from sinks and laundry to use for toilets and other non human consumption needs such as gardens and irrigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater

John Oliver had a very good and humorous summation on the Colorado River crisis Sunday night for his main story. Didn't know about the Colorado River Compact that essentially promises 20% of the river to 6 different parties.

https://youtu.be/jtxew5XUVbQ