General Discussion

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)

18. Californians have enjoyed pretty reasonable costs on water, and many CA cities higher avg use

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 04:03 PM

Apr 2015

than places with adequate water resources.

At least according to this article which is from 2010.

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/the-price-of-water-a-comparison-of-water-rates-usage-in-30-u-s-cities/

Granted the article is dated and doesn't reflect Californians response to the drought, but it raises the question of whether a technically feasible project transporting water from Alaska or British Columbia, or Washington or Oregon could provide water at a price point that would let California be anything like pre-drought California.

And if it can't be, maybe the costs of relocating the people to places that have water to spare at good price points is economically more realistic. There are cities in places east of California that have water and could use people.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Exclusive: William Shatner�s $30 Billion Kickstarter Campaign to Save California [View all] bearssoapbox Apr 2015 OP

If nothing else, it is a constructive idea that would solve a problem. Trillo Apr 2015 #1

That's what I thought. bearssoapbox Apr 2015 #7

It wouldn't solve anything. Seattle doesn't have "too much water". We're in bad shape ND-Dem Apr 2015 #21

It starts the conversation. It's perhaps unfeasable, I do not know. Trillo Apr 2015 #27

You're saying the light snowpack this year is a "negotiation strategy"? I don't get it. ND-Dem Apr 2015 #36

Environmental lawsuits would halt it for decades. former9thward Apr 2015 #34

JOBS, sign the petition. Trillo Apr 2015 #38

I have been told a hundred times on DU former9thward Apr 2015 #40

This pipeline saves lives... trumad Apr 2015 #44

The poster said the pipeline would create thousands of jobs. former9thward Apr 2015 #45

And also, you wouldn't need any pumps pressurize the pipeline, water runs downhill snooper2 Apr 2015 #51

I see what you did there! Trillo Apr 2015 #52

Actually, kiva Apr 2015 #53

I'm good with it, we have thousands of people moving from Cali to the DFW area! snooper2 Apr 2015 #54

I thought of a pipeline also packman Apr 2015 #2

You would need to know both volume and flow rate. bluedigger Apr 2015 #5

Not the evaporation in the pipe packman Apr 2015 #8

with assumptions, post #9 ProdigalJunkMail Apr 2015 #47

America doesn't think big or build stuff any more. onehandle Apr 2015 #3

We're lucky to get potholes fixed. bearssoapbox Apr 2015 #15

Yes We Khan! napkinz Apr 2015 #4

Very bad idea. Water projects caused this problem NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #6

Greed. bearssoapbox Apr 2015 #12

Shhhh MFrohike Apr 2015 #42

four foot diameter pipe... assume water velocity of 80mph ProdigalJunkMail Apr 2015 #9

Does California even need a kickstarter for this? Blue_Tires Apr 2015 #10

No, you can't have ANY of the Great Lakes water. Pathwalker Apr 2015 #11

That's right!!! bearssoapbox Apr 2015 #14

Yeah, we don't need to honor no stinking International treaty! Pathwalker Apr 2015 #24

eh? bearssoapbox Apr 2015 #25

ayup. People have their own sayings up here. Pathwalker Apr 2015 #28

Most of the relatives on my Mom's side still live in northern Minnisota and northern North Dakota. bearssoapbox Apr 2015 #49

Absolutely not. jwirr Apr 2015 #30

I've been saying this for some time now Politicalboi Apr 2015 #13

What's Shatner's water consumption profile? Retrograde Apr 2015 #16

Would that be famed hydrologist William Shatner? IDemo Apr 2015 #17

thank you. shatner's an idiot. he knows nothing except that seattle = rain, so it must ND-Dem Apr 2015 #22

No shit Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2015 #50

Californians have enjoyed pretty reasonable costs on water, and many CA cities higher avg use HereSince1628 Apr 2015 #18

Maybe if they didn't let all the rain Faux pas Apr 2015 #19

This was all hashed out in the 'sixties and early 'seventies... hunter Apr 2015 #20

Interesting thanks...nt Jesus Malverde Apr 2015 #43

There's lots of water nearby, it just has a bunch of salt dissolved in it corkhead Apr 2015 #23

Very energy intensive to do. Trillo Apr 2015 #29

more nuke plants...Fission until we get to Fusion snooper2 Apr 2015 #55

That's an old canard, it's been used at least since 1970s. Trillo Apr 2015 #56

Is the supply of water from the ocean infinite? That is the question we ignore about every resource jwirr Apr 2015 #32

well, technically, no... but practically, yes. ProdigalJunkMail Apr 2015 #46

Otherwise known as a renewable resource. closeupready Apr 2015 #58

i was simply commenting on the infinite-ness of ProdigalJunkMail Apr 2015 #60

No worries, I was just being silly. closeupready Apr 2015 #61

He's 85?! abelenkpe Apr 2015 #26

Notice he said Lake Mead. Xolodno Apr 2015 #31

I don't think a 4 foot diameter pipe Jenoch Apr 2015 #33

What a crackpot. procon Apr 2015 #35

from 1992: Alaskan Water for California? The Subsea Pipeline Option Trillo Apr 2015 #39

Those who disagree with be red shirted. Kaleva Apr 2015 #37

If California wants the Pacific Northwest's water Warren DeMontague Apr 2015 #41

not that far off-Bulk water exports from Sitka, Alaska to California to start this summer J_J_ Apr 2015 #48

Last year Washington was in the midst of a terrible drought... joeybee12 Apr 2015 #57

Here's my solution: hunter Apr 2015 #59