Water and the southwest

[rehmwa 2]

champu

************

Quote

Quit being obtuse.

Please stop quoting my wife. She can speak for herself.

I'm sure she's right but is she a-cutie?

you are such a square when you go off on tangents like that


(I'm rooting for at least 3 more obvious posts along these lines)

Depends on the angle at which you approach this.

I'll take care of the secant one, now we just need a third person to strike a chord and Bill will be happy.

on the plus side - we have solid proof now that people that post on discussion forums really are sad, lonely, nerds with minimal social skills

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 0]

I'm not sad.

[grue 1]

billvon

>Can we get the topic back to the are where 80% is consumed (being Ag), mmmkay? Thanks.

Here's my solution to that -
Cut all farms to 1 acre-foot of water per year from the original water agreements. (Enough for most crops.)

Some crops take more water than that. Almonds, for example, take 3-4 acre-feet of water per acre per year. For those crops, provide salt water for cheap (or even for free if the farmers squawk too loudly.) It takes half an acre of solar evaporators to provide 3 acre-feet of fresh water per year. These are the simplest things you can imagine - basically a flat black metal plate with a plastic cover over them. Water evaporates from the metal plate and condenses as fresh water on the plastic cover.

So farmers can still grow almonds to their heart's content - but will have to put up desalinators if they want to do so. Fortunately they will have the three critical ingredients to do so - salt water, land and sunlight.

Everyone whines about the almonds, but alfalfa is responsible for more overall water usage and can be grown anywhere, whereas almonds from my understanding do particularly well here.

Alfalfa grows anywhere and is only being used as a feed crop for cows anyway.

But for the record, I'm 100% in favor of building large-scale desalination plants and modern nuclear reactors to power them. If Israel can do it, we can do it.

cavete terrae.

[Elisha 1]

grue

***>Can we get the topic back to the are where 80% is consumed (being Ag), mmmkay? Thanks.

Here's my solution to that -
Cut all farms to 1 acre-foot of water per year from the original water agreements. (Enough for most crops.)

Some crops take more water than that. Almonds, for example, take 3-4 acre-feet of water per acre per year. For those crops, provide salt water for cheap (or even for free if the farmers squawk too loudly.) It takes half an acre of solar evaporators to provide 3 acre-feet of fresh water per year. These are the simplest things you can imagine - basically a flat black metal plate with a plastic cover over them. Water evaporates from the metal plate and condenses as fresh water on the plastic cover.

So farmers can still grow almonds to their heart's content - but will have to put up desalinators if they want to do so. Fortunately they will have the three critical ingredients to do so - salt water, land and sunlight.

Everyone whines about the almonds, but alfalfa is responsible for more overall water usage and can be grown anywhere, whereas almonds from my understanding do particularly well here.

Alfalfa grows anywhere and is only being used as a feed crop for cows anyway.

But for the record, I'm 100% in favor of building large-scale desalination plants and modern nuclear reactors to power them. If Israel can do it, we can do it.

+1...but we still don't need to grow as much almonds and pistachios as we do ("just because" isn't good enough when the resources aren't available). About 2/3 of the almonds/pistachios grown are sold to China (or other Asian countries). Further on alfalfa, I think read that a significant portion of what is grown also gets shipped to feed cows in Asia as opposed to our own.

[grue 1]

Elisha

******>Can we get the topic back to the are where 80% is consumed (being Ag), mmmkay? Thanks.

Here's my solution to that -
Cut all farms to 1 acre-foot of water per year from the original water agreements. (Enough for most crops.)

Some crops take more water than that. Almonds, for example, take 3-4 acre-feet of water per acre per year. For those crops, provide salt water for cheap (or even for free if the farmers squawk too loudly.) It takes half an acre of solar evaporators to provide 3 acre-feet of fresh water per year. These are the simplest things you can imagine - basically a flat black metal plate with a plastic cover over them. Water evaporates from the metal plate and condenses as fresh water on the plastic cover.

So farmers can still grow almonds to their heart's content - but will have to put up desalinators if they want to do so. Fortunately they will have the three critical ingredients to do so - salt water, land and sunlight.

Everyone whines about the almonds, but alfalfa is responsible for more overall water usage and can be grown anywhere, whereas almonds from my understanding do particularly well here.

Alfalfa grows anywhere and is only being used as a feed crop for cows anyway.

But for the record, I'm 100% in favor of building large-scale desalination plants and modern nuclear reactors to power them. If Israel can do it, we can do it.

+1...but we still don't need to grow as much almonds and pistachios as we do ("just because" isn't good enough when the resources aren't available). About 2/3 of the almonds/pistachios grown are sold to China (or other Asian countries). Further on alfalfa, I think read that a significant portion of what is grown also gets shipped to feed cows in Asia as opposed to our own.

I wouldn't doubt it for a second. I don't really have a fix, though, due to the complexity of the water rights stuff, and I'm sure that plenty of these farms are probably getting subsidized so they can sell their goods to foreign countries as well.

cavete terrae.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Can we get the topic back to the are where 80% is consumed (being Ag), mmmkay? Thanks.

Here's my solution to that -
Cut all farms to 1 acre-foot of water per year from the original water agreements. (Enough for most crops.)

Some crops take more water than that. Almonds, for example, take 3-4 acre-feet of water per acre per year. For those crops, provide salt water for cheap (or even for free if the farmers squawk too loudly.) It takes half an acre of solar evaporators to provide 3 acre-feet of fresh water per year. These are the simplest things you can imagine - basically a flat black metal plate with a plastic cover over them. Water evaporates from the metal plate and condenses as fresh water on the plastic cover.

So farmers can still grow almonds to their heart's content - but will have to put up desalinators if they want to do so. Fortunately they will have the three critical ingredients to do so - salt water, land and sunlight.

Ain't gonna happen and here is why: there is zero way in hell that environmental review allows for the shipment of salt water inland. There habe to be canals and pipes dug through prime real estate. Then they'd have to bisect the San Andreas fault unless the pipeline comes in from the northern SF Bay. Even if approved it'll be tied up in litigation until 2060 before construction can even start.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>Ain't gonna happen and here is why: there is zero way in hell that environmental review
>allows for the shipment of salt water inland. There habe to be canals and pipes dug
>through prime real estate. Then they'd have to bisect the San Andreas fault unless the
>pipeline comes in from the northern SF Bay. Even if approved it'll be tied up in litigation
>until 2060 before construction can even start.

It's what will happen by default, though. Keep pumping at the same rates and you'll start sucking seawater backwards through the Sacramento Rover delta and into the Delta-Mendota and California canals (inlets are below sea level.) And then farmers will have to deal with seawater in their "fresh water" as well.

"But they'd never do that!" Unfortunately, Carly Fiorina is already campaigning on "keeping the pumps on."

[lawrocket 3]

grue

*********>Can we get the topic back to the are where 80% is consumed (being Ag), mmmkay? Thanks.

Here's my solution to that -
Cut all farms to 1 acre-foot of water per year from the original water agreements. (Enough for most crops.)

Some crops take more water than that. Almonds, for example, take 3-4 acre-feet of water per acre per year. For those crops, provide salt water for cheap (or even for free if the farmers squawk too loudly.) It takes half an acre of solar evaporators to provide 3 acre-feet of fresh water per year. These are the simplest things you can imagine - basically a flat black metal plate with a plastic cover over them. Water evaporates from the metal plate and condenses as fresh water on the plastic cover.

So farmers can still grow almonds to their heart's content - but will have to put up desalinators if they want to do so. Fortunately they will have the three critical ingredients to do so - salt water, land and sunlight.

Everyone whines about the almonds, but alfalfa is responsible for more overall water usage and can be grown anywhere, whereas almonds from my understanding do particularly well here.

Alfalfa grows anywhere and is only being used as a feed crop for cows anyway.

But for the record, I'm 100% in favor of building large-scale desalination plants and modern nuclear reactors to power them. If Israel can do it, we can do it.

+1...but we still don't need to grow as much almonds and pistachios as we do ("just because" isn't good enough when the resources aren't available). About 2/3 of the almonds/pistachios grown are sold to China (or other Asian countries). Further on alfalfa, I think read that a significant portion of what is grown also gets shipped to feed cows in Asia as opposed to our own.

I wouldn't doubt it for a second. I don't really have a fix, though, due to the complexity of the water rights stuff, and I'm sure that plenty of these farms are probably getting subsidized so they can sell their goods to foreign countries as well.

Kinda and sorta. But alfalfa isn't the choice feed. Corn is. I also note that very few people look at the beef industry. It takes a gallon of water to produce an almond. It takes almost two groups and gallons of water to k produce a pound of beef. Yes. This is the same as for almonds.

Consider what is needed for milk. Or cheese. But the focus is on almonds.

I do think that the most effective way tk get anything goes done with water policy in California would be a credible threat to restore Hatch Hatch Valley. Water politics at the state and national level are dominated by Bay area politicians. San Francisco has its own water via act of Congress. If the Bay Area finds its water supply threatened and faces some hurt that the politicians may be willing to yield a bit.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>I do think that the most effective way tk get anything goes done with water policy in
>California would be a credible threat to restore Hatch Hatch Valley.

Did you mean the Hetch Hetchy? I've been seeing plans for that for decades; nothing will come of it. SF needs the water too much.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>Ain't gonna happen and here is why: there is zero way in hell that environmental review
>allows for the shipment of salt water inland. There habe to be canals and pipes dug
>through prime real estate. Then they'd have to bisect the San Andreas fault unless the
>pipeline comes in from the northern SF Bay. Even if approved it'll be tied up in litigation
>until 2060 before construction can even start.

It's what will happen by default, though. Keep pumping at the same rates and you'll start sucking seawater backwards through the Sacramento Rover delta and into the Delta-Mendota and California canals (inlets are below sea level.) And then farmers will have to deal with seawater in their "fresh water" as well.

"But they'd never do that!" Unfortunately, Carly Fiorina is already campaigning on "keeping the pumps on."

Of course. It'd be nice if the arguments were made that way. But they aren't. The dominant reason why the pumps are being shut off is habitat for a fish. That's been the battleground.

Note: your solution not only makes a fine short term solution but a long-term solution as well. The soil is becoming salter due to transportation of this water and deposit of the salts. This could help with it

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>I do think that the most effective way tk get anything goes done with water policy in
>California would be a credible threat to restore Hatch Hatch Valley.

Did you mean the Hetch Hetchy? I've been seeing plans for that for decades; nothing will come of it. SF needs the water too much.

I hate my iPhone autocorrect.

But yes. You are right. The Bay Area politicians want to restore everything else except Hatch Hetchy. We are at an impasse. And have been since Pat Brown.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>The dominant reason why the pumps are being shut off is habitat for a fish. That's
>been the battleground.

Well, not really habitat. They have quite literally been sucking them into the pumps from downstream and killing them.

But that's not a separate problem. We are sucking in water from both upstream and downstream of the Banks pumping plant. The smelt live downstream. So when you pump, you initially get fresh water, then you start sucking up the downstream water which is still mostly fresh AND has smelt in it, then you get seawater (inevitable once you reverse the flow.) The smelt indicate "you're about to run out of fresh water in this direction, so you have to slow down the pumping rate." The fact that you are also driving them to extinction is a byproduct of the overpumping, not a separate issue.

It's easy to think of the delta as an unlimited source of water, but in fact we are coming very close to pumping it dry of fresh water. Thus the various solutions that involve moving the pumping point will help, but not solve, the problem (unless we want the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta to start looking like the Colorado river delta.)

[masterrig 1]

I've been all through this thread and have seen mention of various ideas for conserving/procuring water but absolutely no mention of 'no' swimming pools. To me, that is the biggest waste of water going. Seldom used and seems like they are for mostly bragging rights or a gaudy display of one's wealth. Meanwhile, Lake Tahoe water levels drop to near zero.


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>I've been all through this thread and have seen mention of various ideas for
>conserving/procuring water but absolutely no mention of 'no' swimming pools.

While it uses less water than grass (in other words, if you replace your grass lawn with a pool of the same size, you save water in the long run) I agree that it should be part of water restrictions. Several counties have already implemented "no new pool" and "no draining/refilling pool" rules.

However, it should also be noted that if a county restricts pool construction and still allows grass, then overall water usage will go up. Xeriscaping requirements could solve that problem.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>I've been all through this thread and have seen mention of various ideas for
>conserving/procuring water but absolutely no mention of 'no' swimming pools.

While it uses less water than grass (in other words, if you replace your grass lawn with a pool of the same size, you save water in the long run) I agree that it should be part of water restrictions. Several counties have already implemented "no new pool" and "no draining/refilling pool" rules.

However, it should also be noted that if a county restricts pool construction and still allows grass, then overall water usage will go up. Xeriscaping requirements could solve that problem.

A couple of things

First is that a pool is more than just a nice thing sometimes. When it's 110 out a swimming pool can be a nice place to cool off.

Second thing is that there are restrictions on draining a pool where j love. You need a permit for it. My libertarian leanings notwithstanding I do find these tk be apprppriate

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>I've been all through this thread and have seen mention of various ideas for
>conserving/procuring water but absolutely no mention of 'no' swimming pools.

While it uses less water than grass (in other words, if you replace your grass lawn with a pool of the same size, you save water in the long run) I agree that it should be part of water restrictions. Several counties have already implemented "no new pool" and "no draining/refilling pool" rules.

However, it should also be noted that if a county restricts pool construction and still allows grass, then overall water usage will go up. Xeriscaping requirements could solve that problem.

They could quit doing both... at least till the drought ends.


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>They could quit doing both... at least till the drought ends.

True. They could cover their pool and stop watering their lawns - that would solve the problems with both.

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>They could quit doing both... at least till the drought ends.

True. They could cover their pool and stop watering their lawns - that would solve the problems with both.

The big question... are folks willing to do that?


Chuck

[BartsDaddy 4]

Well being as how dead landscaping could lower a properties value by 10 to 40 thousand or more. If you were trying to sell would you let it die? And I am not saying everyone needs lush landscaping either. I have weeds, Brown and dry ones now. I never water.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[masterrig 1]

BartsDaddy

Well being as how dead landscaping could lower a properties value by 10 to 40 thousand or more. If you were trying to sell would you let it die? And I am not saying everyone needs lush landscaping either. I have weeds, Brown and dry ones now. I never water.

I don't water either... I live on a rock-pile. Trim 'em up nice and neat and put the place up for sale after the grass and weeds have cycled in fall.


Chuck


Chuck

[kelpdiver 2]

BartsDaddy

Well being as how dead landscaping could lower a properties value by 10 to 40 thousand or more. If you were trying to sell would you let it die? And I am not saying everyone needs lush landscaping either. I have weeds, Brown and dry ones now. I never water.

In my part of SF, it is a mandate to have landscaping. Those who would pave it over to create a parking space can be directed to tear it out.

A good mandate to me - I don't particularly want to live in a concrete jungle.

[kelpdiver 2]

grue

Everyone whines about the almonds, but alfalfa is responsible for more overall water usage and can be grown anywhere, whereas almonds from my understanding do particularly well here.

a key, and fair knock against almonds is that when you plant those trees, you're made a commitment to that high water use forever. But you can choose to not plant alfalfa during a drought year. You can choose to slaughter your cattle and sell the beef, which is what happens when feed prices are high. But you can't let a producing almond tree die.

[grue 1]

kelpdiver

But you can't let a producing almond tree die.

Why?

cavete terrae.

[billvon 2,400]

>The big question... are folks willing to do that?

Probably not. Nor are they willing to make changes that really _will_ make a difference, like switching crops or eating less meat.

[DanG 1]

Because it takes something like 20 years to grow a new one. If they let all the almond trees die for a short term drought, then the world won't have almonds for 20 years, and all those farmers will be completely out of business.

- Dan G