HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » California Running out of...

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:28 AM

California Running out of Water

http://upriser.com/posts/california-will-run-out-of-water-in-a-year-nasa-scientist-says

"California is running out of water fast, according to NASA senior water scientist. Shockingly, the entire state of California will be out of water in just a year's time.

Yes, California will run out of water in 12 months, according to Jay Famiglietti, NASA senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

As difficult as it may be to face, the simple fact is that California is running out of water — and the problem started before the current drought. NASA data reveals that total water storage in California has been in steady decline since at least 2002, when satellite-based monitoring began, although groundwater depletion has been going on since the early 20th century."

------------------------

I don't know anything about that news sight or the scientist, but I find it believable. We keep getting what are known as "Santa Ana" events in the south part of California—hot and dry. Then in the summer it's hot and humid. But no rain.

85 replies, 5734 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply California Running out of Water (Original post)
C Moon Mar 2015 OP
AgingAmerican Mar 2015 #1
Journeyman Mar 2015 #2
AgingAmerican Mar 2015 #3
CreekDog Mar 2015 #61
AgingAmerican Mar 2015 #82
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #31
Journeyman Mar 2015 #33
Unknown Beatle Mar 2015 #36
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #45
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #69
yeoman6987 Mar 2015 #72
CreekDog Mar 2015 #64
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #68
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2015 #6
jonno99 Mar 2015 #57
cherokeeprogressive Mar 2015 #75
roody Mar 2015 #7
Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2015 #9
hunter Mar 2015 #58
marym625 Mar 2015 #4
raccoon Mar 2015 #37
marym625 Mar 2015 #41
sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #73
marym625 Mar 2015 #74
raccoon Mar 2015 #84
Trillo Mar 2015 #5
C Moon Mar 2015 #8
SleeplessinSoCal Mar 2015 #10
Kablooie Mar 2015 #14
C Moon Mar 2015 #19
ErikJ Mar 2015 #21
C Moon Mar 2015 #46
ErikJ Mar 2015 #11
grasswire Mar 2015 #13
ErikJ Mar 2015 #16
grasswire Mar 2015 #51
ErikJ Mar 2015 #67
Drahthaardogs Mar 2015 #83
KT2000 Mar 2015 #15
ErikJ Mar 2015 #17
KT2000 Mar 2015 #34
hatrack Mar 2015 #40
KT2000 Mar 2015 #53
AgingAmerican Mar 2015 #85
DeSwiss Mar 2015 #32
hunter Mar 2015 #63
grasswire Mar 2015 #12
KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #18
Kablooie Mar 2015 #20
C Moon Mar 2015 #22
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #29
ErikJ Mar 2015 #23
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #30
PasadenaTrudy Mar 2015 #54
nationalize the fed Mar 2015 #24
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #28
C Moon Mar 2015 #47
Populist_Prole Mar 2015 #25
KamaAina Mar 2015 #49
JDPriestly Mar 2015 #26
Kablooie Mar 2015 #27
Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #56
thelordofhell Mar 2015 #35
raccoon Mar 2015 #38
C Moon Mar 2015 #48
99Forever Mar 2015 #39
Yo_Mama Mar 2015 #42
raouldukelives Mar 2015 #43
Act_of_Reparation Mar 2015 #44
AZ Progressive Mar 2015 #50
C Moon Mar 2015 #70
ghostsinthemachine Mar 2015 #52
Brother Buzz Mar 2015 #59
ghostsinthemachine Mar 2015 #60
Brother Buzz Mar 2015 #62
Amishman Mar 2015 #65
Name removed Mar 2015 #55
CreekDog Mar 2015 #66
valerief Mar 2015 #71
midnight Mar 2015 #76
C Moon Mar 2015 #77
midnight Mar 2015 #78
C Moon Mar 2015 #79
IDemo Mar 2015 #80
midnight Mar 2015 #81

Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:40 AM

1. They better start building desalination plants

 

quick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:44 AM

2. If it were only so easy . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:47 AM

3. Necessity

 

...is the mother of invention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:39 PM

61. how do you know that's the best solution?

what is your expertise on this subject?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #61)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:35 PM

82. I know that

 

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Do you dispute this undisputable fact?

..Oh, wait, I remember you.. You're the anti-desalination plant guy!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:20 AM

31. Australia, Israel and Saudi Arabia do it. We can too.

See posts below quoting from articles about the desalination plants in the three countries I just named. Saudi Arabia has oil. California has an incredible amount of sun. It is a matter of building the infrastructure. Laissez faire economics will not work in the face of the drought we are experiencing. We need pro-active government investment in solar energy and desalination plants. Other countries do it. We can too.

After all, in the rest of the country, snow plows can be very expensive as can building and maintaining dams, purifying lake water and river water, and all the work required to deal with the surplus of water in many areas of the country.

We don't spend much on heating homes and buildings in Southern California. It will just be a matter of allocating resources to fit our needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:53 AM

33. Its promise comes with a host of endemic problems and concerns . . .

The need for massive amounts of energy to drive it, the ravages to oceanic life and the coastal impact from the intake, the seemingly intractable problem of saline disposal, and the ever-present issue of funding for construction and maintenance (witness the near-criminal response the plant at Huntington Beach, California has generated, what with the proposed requirement that participating water districts must pay for their full allotment of water no matter whether they need it or not in any given year).

The Pacific Institute has an informative report on the topic:

Desalination, With a Grain of Salt: A California Perspective

available for free download from the Institute's website:

http://pacinst.org/publication/desalination-with-a-grain-of-salt-a-california-perspective-2/

In Desalination, With a Grain of Salt – A California Perspective, the Pacific Institute provides a comprehensive overview of the history, benefits, and risks of ocean desalination, and the barriers that hinder more widespread use of this technology, especially in the context of recent proposals for a massive increase in desalination development in California. Long considered the Holy Grail of water supply, desalination offers the potential of an unlimited source of fresh water purified from the vast oceans of salt water that surround us. The public, politicians, and water managers continue to hope that cost-effective and environmentally safe ocean desalination will come to the rescue of water-short regions. While seawater desalination plants are already vital for economic development in many arid and water-short areas of the world, many plants are overly expensive, inaccurately promoted, poorly designed, inappropriately sited, and ultimately useless. To avoid new, expensive errors, policymakers and the public need to take a careful look at the advantages and disadvantages of desalination and develop clear guidance on how to evaluate and judge proposals for new facilities.

The potential benefits of ocean desalination are great, but the economic, cultural, and environmental costs of wide commercialization remain high. In many parts of the world, alternatives can provide the same freshwater benefits of ocean desalination at far lower economic and environmental costs. These alternatives include treating low-quality local water sources, encouraging regional water transfers, improving conservation and efficiency, accelerating wastewater recycling and reuse, and implementing smart land-use planning.


while UC Berkley hosted the author of the report, Heather Cooley, which the University posted to YouTube as part of its "California Colloquium on Water":



A much better approach, in both the short and long term, is the development of wastewater recycling systems, such as the OCWD Groundwater Replenishment System, which in the 6 years it's been in operation has produced over 152 Billion (with a B) gallons of high quality water, potable water that exceeds all state and federal drinking water standards.

Learn more at the GWRS website: http://www.gwrsystem.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 05:10 AM

36. Texas' Water Woes Spark Interest in Desalination

The state’s largest is in El Paso, where the $91 million Kay Bailey Hutchinson Desalination Plant, completed in 2007, can supply up to 27.5 million gallons of water a day, though it rarely operates at full capacity because of the high energy costs associated with forcing water through a membrane resembling parchment to take out the salts. (Production of desalinated water costs 2.1 times more than fresh groundwater and 70 percent more than surface water, according to El Paso Water Utilities, which said that the plant's rate impact amounted to about 4 cents for every 750 gallons of the utility's overall supply.) Last year, the plant supplied 4 percent of El Paso’s water.

http://www.texastribune.org/2012/06/10/texas-water-woes-spark-interest-desalination/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:32 AM

45. You have to have water to recycle water.

We really don't get enough water.

We will need a mix of recycling and desalinizing. There is no way around it.

We probably also need a moratorium on development, but that probably can't happen because it would probably be illegal somehow.

In Los Angeles, a tremendous amount of new housing is being built and planned. For the moment, I don't know how the builders think the people living in the housing will have water.

But, as i pointed out, the advantages in terms of savings on heating costs and the costs of repairing damage to infrastructure from weather events and disasters are great in Southern California. We don't have flooding in dry years. We don't have to plow snow. We heat our houses for very little money and very little damage to our environment.

So the costs to the environment and to our pocketbooks evens out.
eslainate
Even with regard to earthquakes, California homeowners buy earthquake insurance, so we are building a fund to help us rebuild when the inevitable earthquake happens. Think of the cost of Katrina, and then think of the cost of building facilities for fulfilling California's water needs. Per capita, I think we in California deserve the same kind of help that people in other parts of the country receive in terms of investment and financial aid when they have natural disaster problems.

We just voted to put money into water facilities.

And if Saudi Arabia, Israel and Australia can desalinate water, we will figure out how to do it too. We have enormous untapped potential in solar energy. That is especially true now that we are in what appears to be a long-term drought.

I don't think the water recycling will be enough long-term.

Above all, we need to stop fracking and other oil production that uses a lot of water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:57 PM

69. I am also skeptical about the quality of water that we will get if we rely on recycled water.

I don't have time to watch the video and read the article now, but I will come back to it later.

On edit, with regard to the amount of energy needed, that is a challenge that comes with a great reward. If we gear up our solar energy resources to desalinate water, we can develop solar energy and other sources of energy as well as fulfill our water needs.

We hear of the likelihood of rising ocean levels. That will change the ocean's ecology in any event. The amount of disturbance that desalinating water for California would cause will not seem so important compared to the problems that climate change cause.

Making recycled water drinkable and safe for bathing will cost an enormous amount of money.

And in the long run, the quality of water will decline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Journeyman (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:45 PM

72. California is the most liberal state in the United States

 

Clearly the state can find a way to do this efficiently and with environmental impacts in mind. Start off by doubling everyone's water bill because that will immediately begin the less water usage. Close all car washes. No watering lawns ever. Begin selling shower timers that only operate once a day. 5 minutes a day per shower. Many ways to handle this and if the liberals pass this then other states may get on board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:39 PM

64. how do you know desalination is the most effective solution?

how do you know, how do you know, how do you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #64)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:56 PM

68. Recycling water? Importing water?

Are they safer or less expensive? And what is the environmental foot print of each?

I don't know, but I think we will probably need all three.

A lot of people want to recycle water. We can start there. But over time, I don't think it will be nearly enough.

We need to develop the desalination technology now.

And we need to stop fracking and oil drilling processes that use a lot of water within California. We can't afford to waste precious water on those processes.

Every solution is very expensive. But we know that the salty water is plentiful. I'm skeptical about recycling water as a longterm solution, but I don't know so much about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:57 AM

6. No. No. No. No. Not Really High-Speed Rail is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:01 PM

57. +1 I've heard that for the price of their high-speed rail project

they could instead get a decent desal plant...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #57)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:34 PM

75. SIXTY of them. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:57 AM

7. My 3700 gallon rainwater storage is almost installed.

It's ready for the rain now, but not quite complete. The water will supply cold water to my washing machine and to one toilet. I already have greywater going to fruit trees from one shower, one sink, and the laundry. I'm in N. Cal, so it will likely rain sometime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:01 AM

9. impressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:05 PM

58. Using fossil fuels to desalinate seawater is extreme idiocy.

There is nothing that would make me support desalinization here in California so long as ANY fossil fuel power plants remain a source of California's electric power.

I'd sooner shut down our farms and cities and move people someplace the rain still falls.

Otherwise we are simply postponing and compounding future environmental horrors, dumping the fallout of our stupidity onto our own children and grandchildren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:54 AM

4. frightening reality

Won't be long that people will be shooting each other for fresh water. They already are in other parts of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:24 AM

37. Where? Link? Inquiring minds want to know! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raccoon (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:27 AM

41. This is beginning in other places as well.

The civil war in Syria started over the lack of water to grow crops.

But specially, in Yemen they are shooting each other over fresh water. There are other news stories about it but this is specifically about the shortages around the world due to global warming.

In the face of death, people will not simply give up; they will do whatever they can to survive. In Yemen, for instance, people are currently killing each other to get bottles of fresh water.


http://www.climate-change-guide.com/wars-over-natural-resources.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marym625 (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:46 PM

73. thank you for that reminder. I saw a documentary on that very subject re Syria and Water

a while ago on one of RT's excellent documentaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #73)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:14 PM

74. It was also part of the documentary series

Years of Living Dangerously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #73)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 07:13 AM

84. Who/what is RT? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:56 AM

5. Fog catchers?

This Tower Pulls Drinking Water Out of Thin Air
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/this-tower-pulls-drinking-water-out-of-thin-air-180950399/?no-ist

I wonder if local zoning would get their knickers in a twist if those started popping up on folks roofs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:57 AM

8. Wow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:20 AM

10. Free Rain Barrels for L.A.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Water-barrels-Keep-Los-Angeles-Beautiful-conservation-DWP-295063611.html

"Hundreds of rain barrels will be given away during the month of March as part of an initiative to conserve water in drought-stricken Los Angeles.

Keep Los Angeles Beautiful, an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful, was spearheading the 1,000-barrel project.

Most Californians Agree, Water Shortage Is Serious

More than 600 residents in LA who pre-registered for the barrels in 2014 were given the rain catching drums last year. A new batch will be handed out over the next few weeks."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SleeplessinSoCal (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:31 AM

14. But where's the rain to fill them with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:38 AM

19. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:42 AM

21. It doesnt take much rain.

 

The roofs catch a lot of water in one rain and the rain barrels dont evaporate or get algae contaminated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:08 AM

46. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:23 AM

11. Theyve talked about tapping water from the Columbia River

 

for a long time so maybe they will now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:30 AM

13. how would California tap water from the Columbia? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #13)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:32 AM

16. Pipelines of course pumped by wind and water power plants along the Columbia. nt

 

Theyve been threatening it for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:38 AM

51. who is "they"?

...and what will the PNW do for water if bordering states want to "tap" it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:45 PM

67. I guess the plan was to take it from the mouth of the Columbia

 

before it goes into the Pacific. And it would be transported to Calif. by aqueduct. The mouth of the Columbia is huge so no water would be lost for upstreamers. I wouldnt want to drink that water though. I think it has a bit of radiation from Hanford nuke waste.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:57 PM

83. Yes, but you have to own the water to do it.

And water law is tricky. MOst western states do not allow you to sell your rights to another state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:31 AM

15. Really?

Washington has had three areas classified as drought areas with rationing ahead.

There are many people moving from California into the area where I live - Olympic Peninsula. Maybe not be such a good idea. Snow pack in the Olympics is 7% of normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:34 AM

17. Most of Columbia's water comes from the Canadian Rockies.

 

Its a huge watershed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:46 AM

34. but would Washington

and Oregon go for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:38 AM

40. Not just no, but hell no. This was hotly debated back in the 60s and 70s

IIRC, Scoop Jackson worked a wrinkle into federal law that any interstate transfers from the Columbia basin had to be authorized by the entire Congress before any preliminary work could even begin.

Politically, any PNW politician worth his/her salt could put together a coalition to block any such plan to benefit California at their own hydrological expense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #40)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:48 AM

53. Thanks for this info - seem to recall

controversy back then but didn't know Scoop Jackson took care of it though. He and Magnuson knew how to get it done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:59 AM

85. I remember them talking about doing this in the 80s.

 

Of course it was just talk.

Eastern Washington is in drought right now because we have almost no snowpack this year. I live in Seattle where we are set for water for the next 60 years. Most people don't know this but eastern washington is mostly one big desert.

Our view of the Olympics looks like what we normally see in July or even early August, just a few sprigs of snow at the very crest of the range. It's pretty sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:36 AM

32. Drinking water downstream from Hanford Nuclear Plant......

 

...is hazardous to your health.



In southeastern Washington, a 50-mile (80 km) stretch of the river passes through the Hanford Site, established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project. The site served as a plutonium production complex, with nine nuclear reactors and related facilities located on the banks of the river. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. By 1957, the eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies of radioactive material into the Columbia. These releases were kept secret by the federal government until the release of declassified documents in the late 1980s. Radiation was measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts. link


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:39 PM

63. Oh for fuck's sake.

Not to dismiss the horrors of Hanford, but people all over the U.S.A. drink water far more toxic and even far more radioactive than Columbia River water.

Ever seen a "blue baby?"

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/methaemoglob/en/

Many agricultural areas, even within the U.S.A., are far more toxic and out-of-control than Hanford or Fukushima.

Death by radioactive toxin isn't any worse than death by agricultural toxin.

Don't tell me I'm a supporter of nuclear power either. I'm a Luddite. In my imaginary utopias fossil fuels, personal automobiles, and anything but small urban electric networks are illegal. From my radical environmentalist and humanist perspective, nuclear power, either fission or fusion, simply isn't useful, and undesirable not so much for any toxins it produced, but for the toxic consumerist economic "productivity" it supports.

Economic productivity as we now measure it is directly proportional to the damage we are doing to earth's environment and our own human spirit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:29 AM

12. don't plan on using Northwest water, neighbors

Our snow pack is 30 percent of normal in Oregon. We are going to barely meet our own needs. And "climate refugees" are going to be increasingly given the stink eye, I would guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:35 AM

18. There was an op-ed piece in the LA Times recently arguing much the same. But

 

I think the 'run out of water' trope is a bit alarmist. Some parts of the state are experiencing worse drought conditions than others, but it seems highly unlikely that the entire state will 'run out of water' at exactly the same time.

Link to the LA Times op-ed (by the scientist named in your article):

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-drought-california-20150313-story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:41 AM

20. I live in LA but I don't feel an emergency mood here at all.

We hear about the problem of course but there are just vague suggestions that we conserve water. There are a few restrictions on watering lawns but not very severe.

In the past there were much more aggressive conservation campaigns but now when the danger is imminent and expected to be much worse than before, the government isn't communicating that strongly at all.

They need to start explaining specifics and then holdIng people to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:48 AM

22. Great point. Decades ago, California had "drought police"...

and I recall seeing them in our neighborhood; I recall people being so uptight that they'd yell at neighbors for washing their cars; no water given in restaurants unless requested; on and on...
Now there's nothing.
WTF?
There sure seems to be a Laissez-faire attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:10 AM

29. We just voted money for water projects. If you are in California and you vote, I hope you

realize this. That was in this March election. I believe the measure passed. If I am wrong, I hope someone will correct me. I am too tired to check the election results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:55 AM

23. Put the Kardashians on it.

 

Theyll set good examples for everybody I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:12 AM

30. We have cut water use by over 20% already I read.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article9118931.html

We cut our water usage more than 20% in December per that article.

Jerry Brown is on this. We just voted this March for funds for water projects. There will be more, I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:49 AM

54. I know!

I remember in the '70s when we were in a drought, it was taken much more seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:56 AM

24. Australia had a 12 year mega drought

The difference between Australia and the US is that Australia actually did something about it.

The Millenium Drought (1997–2009) led to a water supply crisis across much of the country. A combination of increased water usage and lower rainfall/drought in Australia caused state governments to turn to desalination. As a result several large-scale desalination plants were constructed (see list).

Large-scale seawater reverse osmosis plants (SWRO) now contribute to the domestic water supplies of several major Australian cities including Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and the Gold Coast...

Seawater desalination in Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_desalination_in_Australia


Sydney Desalination Plant


Israel

Israel Desalination Enterprises' Sorek Desalination Plant in Palmachim provides up to 26,000 m³ of potable water per hour (2.300 m³ p.a.). At full capacity, it is the largest desalination plant of its kind in the world. Once unthinkable, given Israel's history of drought and lack of available fresh water resource, with desalination, Israel can now actually produce a surplus of fresh water...more


Estimates vary widely between 15,000–20,000 desalination plants around the world producing more than 20,000 m3/day.

Existing desalination facilities and facilities under construction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Existing_facilities_and_facilities_under_construction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:08 AM

28. Very interesting. We are going to have to have massive amounts of desalinization.

Takes a lot of energy. But we have the sun, and solar energy is just getting started in Southern California.

For those in the rest of the country who will say that desalinating water takes too much energy, I say, heating your homes in cold climates takes too much energy and damages our environment. Dealing with our water crisis will not be more costly once the initial research and investment have been paid for than dealing with the annual snow storms (clearing streets, etc.), heating your houses and dealing with floods, hurricanes and tornadoes (which we do not have in California.)

Can we afford desalination? If we can afford bridges across the great rivers in the rainy and snowy parts of our country, we certainly can afford desalination in California. Every area of the country has climate issues to deal with, and that is without thinking about climate change. Think how cold it gets in Alaska and Maine. What is the cost of heating the homes in those states? We will be able to desalinate a lot of water here in California for that kind of money.

It was, by the way, at least 90 today in Los Angeles, sunny and bright. And it is only March.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:10 AM

47. Interesting take. I'd never thought about comparing energy costs like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:57 AM

25. Arid desert climate, high rate of development: What could possibly go wrong?

Sure, tap off the Colorado river. Does that thing even make it to the Pacific?

Same for Arizona, but even more so, a few aquifers notwithstanding.

Mankind's arrogance is definitely getting its comeuppance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Populist_Prole (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:28 AM

49. Just barely.

 

/@@images/b72fb236-fbc5-4ae1-9366-3d6512e0344a.jpeg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:02 AM

26. Desalination will, in my opinion, be necessary, regardless of cost.

Israel is desalinating water. It supplies water to itself but also to Jordan and to the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/agriculture/desal2011.html

Saudi Arabia is maybe the leader in desalination.

Saudi Arabia pumps the equivalent of 300,000 barrels of oil to operate its desalination stations on the eastern and western coasts of the country, providing 3.3 million cubic meters of water from the stations operated by the state-owned Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC). At the same time, in the medium term, Saudi Arabia is need of huge capital investments in order for this sector to remain able to meet its obligations, which are growing at an incredible yearly rate.

Saudi Arabia consumes near 7 billion cubic meters of water daily, 60 percent of which is desalinated. Of this, 40 percent comes from SWCC desalination stations and 20 percent from stations operated by the private sector. Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Ibrahim, Governor of the SWCC, recently admitted in a press conference: “We have exceeded the economic accounts allotted for providing desalinated water.”

In meeting the demand for the most basic and essential requirement for life, the Saudi authorities face three challenges: bottlenecks in desalination capacity, pricing, and the depletion of existing resources.

While Saudi Arabia is among the most water–poor countries in the world, its water system is one of the least costly for consumers. The tariff paid by consumers per cubic meter desalinated water is SAR 0.12 (about USD 0.03), while, the cost of production for stations that produce 20,000 cubic meters daily reaches SAR 12 (USD 3.20) per cubic meter. This is what costs the public treasury vast sums to produce water.

http://www.aawsat.net/2013/07/article55308131/the-desalination-nation

Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil to fuel its desalination plants. Southern California has a lot of sunshine. We are somehow going to have to use our resources and sunshine will be one we have to learn to use for desalinating water. I do not see any other solution to this problem.

We are xeriscaping like mad. Yard after yard is turning to desert landscaping.

Remember, we use relatively little fuel for heating our homes. Amd I have difficulty believing that any other state in the union has so many low gas mileage cars, either Prius type cars or electric cars. We could improve our public transportation in LA a lot, and we are working on it but progress is slow.

We will need to develop the technologies that turn the salt water that is so plentiful on our shores into potable water.

As for me, I garden in pots and use the water from my kitchen with the exception of soapy water on my plants, but I still have to use a little tap water for my garden. We have trees. They need water. And we need the trees. We don't have air conditioning. Our trees cool our house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 02:07 AM

27. So far it's not even being discussed. The consensus is that it's too expensive...

so they aren't even considering desalination for LA.

Like I said in an earlier post, so far this is not being considered a crisis in LA.
Just a mild annoyance.
There is less focus on it than in short drought periods in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:53 AM

56. "The consensus is that it's too expensive..."

Honest question: What are the cost estimates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:02 AM

35. Meanwhile, Rice and Almond farms continue unabated..............

Conservation by the public is like a drop in the bucket.........it's the farmland that's sucking up the supply

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thelordofhell (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:26 AM

38. Rice uses tons of water...which is why it was grown so much in colonial lowcountry SC. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thelordofhell (Reply #35)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:11 AM

48. Yeah, I saw a program on almond farming being a huge water sucker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 07:34 AM

39. Golly gee...

...huge populations in an area with only limited resources.

Who could have seen this coming?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:28 AM

42. I think current water systems just did not keep up to the rising population/longer term average.

CA has always been subject to long droughts, and according to some stuff I read years ago, in fact CA has been wetter than the long term average for chunks of recent history.

I looked at CDEC - current supply is about 2/3rds of average:
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reservoirs/RES

But a system that may have been generally adequate decades ago cannot supply a population that has increased by 10 million.

CDEC (bottom table) also gives Oct-Feb rainfall statewide at a bit above 80% of average, with the past year at 57%:
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/precip/PRECIPSUM

What that means is that the water system as a whole is getting close to capacity. No one can expect over the long run to get 90% of average rainfall year after year. That's not the way the weather works! Nor is the recent average the long-term average.

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140215/history-shows-california-subject-to-extreme-droughts
The last 150 years of weather represent some of the most peaceful, reliable periods of rainfall in the region’s history, concluded paleoclimatologists B. Lynn Ingram and Frances Malamud-Roam, in their recent book “The West Without Water.”

Put succinctly, Ingram and Malamud-Roam concluded that we have drastically underestimated the severity of the West’s weather.

Using their own research and cross-referencing with other scientists and scientific disciplines, they say California’s water supply can turn seemingly on a dime, and then stay changed for long stretches of time.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:59 AM

43. So much waste, so many thieves.

Here in the north the wineries have been wrecking balls when it comes to our water resources. Many illegally draw water directly from creeks & streams to water and protect from frost. If they are caught, the fine is less than it would cost them to legally obtain it in the first place.
If people care about California water, wildlife & forests, the best thing they can do is avoid California wines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:05 AM

44. Wow, that would be really scary....

...if that's what Famiglietti actually said.

But it isn't.

This is what he said:

Right now the state [of California] has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing.


California will not be completely out of water in a year's time. The reserves will be gone. While that is certainly a pressing problem, there's no reason to go all Lord of Flies just yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:36 AM

50. What would happen is that California will do further water restrictions, that's all

The Central Valley's economy will suffer for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:30 PM

70. Thanks. You're right about the quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 11:41 AM

52. I am sitting across from a car wash

Right now in Folsom CA and the line is around the block. And most of the cars are already plenty clean! Nobody gives a shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ghostsinthemachine (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:14 PM

59. If it's Folsom Glenn Car Wash, it's a certified green car wash

Oh, that line around the block are monthly members and can get their car washed as many times as they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:25 PM

60. it is

But water is still being used. For nothing really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ghostsinthemachine (Reply #60)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:39 PM

62. The certified green water goes back into the American river so Sacramento can use it

My Pappy used to say, "Never, ever drink water downstream from the herd!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ghostsinthemachine (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:41 PM

65. car washes are not big water wasters

most have fairly efficient water reclamation systems.

People are vain and stupid and will wash their cars. It is better and more water efficient if they do it at a professional car wash with a reclamation system than if they do it in their driveway and waste far more water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #55)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:41 PM

66. rain barrels aren't going to solve a drought problem

there have been about 40 days of rain in San Francisco this year.

how are rain barrels going to solve a lack of rain given they require rain to be filled?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 01:35 PM

71. They'll just take it from poor people. Need all the water they can get for all the

CA fracking being done. THAT certainly can't stop and be replaced with, oh, something waterless like solar or wind energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Original post)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 03:49 PM

76. I wondered how the dairy industry would be able to survive on a desert?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 04:25 PM

77. California is becoming lactose intollerant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:27 PM

78. Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to midnight (Reply #78)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:30 PM

79. It was a lame attempt on my part at a joke. Didn't work too well. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Reply #79)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 08:57 PM

80. States Dangle Water to Tempt California Dairy Farmers

With California facing its fourth year of a devastating drought, and dairy operators struggling with the high cost of hay, other states are swooping in to try to lure them away. And they're not pitching generous tax incentives, but the promise of water, a stable feed supply and abundant land.

"We just feel that we're a natural fit for dairy in Nebraska, because we have the land, we have the water and the feed, and we have low electricity rates," said Willow Holoubek, executive director of the Alliance for the Future of Agriculture in Nebraska. "We have a couple of California dairymen building in Nebraska now. One is building and one has moved most of his herd already, and we've got several more that are thinking about it."

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/states-dangle-water-tempt-california-dairy-farmers-n303806

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Reply #79)

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:26 PM

81. O that's allright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread