NG: Why is America running out of water?

[The Sisko]

On 10/27/2021 at 3:22 PM, Renegade7 said:

We have oil pipelines, we need water pipelines.  Desalination is the way to go and the price will come down, it already is. its crazy to me that 2/3rds of the planet is covered in water yet people are dying from lack of access and fighting over it, we are better then this.

There are a few problems with these ideas. I question the ability of a country that can barely manage and maintain its current infrastructure to pull off a massive, probably decades long uphill pipeline project like this off. Also, who says the excess water in the MS river will continue to be a thing for essentially forever?

But wait, you say. Can’t we throw it over to our infinitely efficient, omniscient, and benevolent corporate overlords? They can fix it. The market can fix anything!

They might be able to pull it off, but adding a profit motive and middlemen would only exacerbate the issue with the government pipeline, ie cost. So you might get your water, but you probably wouldn’t be able to afford it.

Desalination is energy intensive and then there’s the problem of handling the brine and other concentrated badness it often produces. Ultimately, the solutions involve conserving, you know, that part of conservatism they don’t want to talk about, and seriously considering sustainability in everything from manufacturing to development. Some places simply shouldn’t have as many people because there’s not enough water to support ever larger populations there.

 

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

There are a few problems with these ideas. I question the ability of a country that can barely manage and maintain its current infrastructure to pull off a massive, probably decades long uphill pipeline project like this off. Also, who says the excess water in the MS river will continue to be a thing for essentially forever?

 

Its one of those things where we may have to look at how other countries tackle this as a blueprint for pitfalls to avoid. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/china-has-launched-the-largest-water-pipeline-project-in-history/284300/

 

We did jus pass a trillion infrastructure bill, so my concern is more major projects, like national high-speed rail, then maintenance.  Theres $500 billion plus in BBB plan the house passed specific to climate change, so to me if we're going wait until our back against the wall to address the worst cases and priorities, its still better then nothing.

 

As for the Mississippi, I lean more towards going directly after the great lakes and desalination instead of depending on just that river.  But factoring it into the plan shouldn't be negated.

 

27 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

But wait, you say. Can’t we throw it over to our infinitely efficient, omniscient, and benevolent corporate overlords? They can fix it. The market can fix anything!

They might be able to pull it off, but adding a profit motive and middlemen would only exacerbate the issue with the government pipeline, ie cost. So you might get your water, but you probably wouldn’t be able to afford it.

 

 

It'd have to be a government lead project, waiting for private sector to solve a national problem like this would be a mistake.

 

27 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

 

Desalination is energy intensive and then there’s the problem of handling the brine and other concentrated badness it often produces.

 

Like most technologies, as the efficiency improves, the costs come down:

 

https://www.wired.com/story/desalination-is-booming-as-cities-run-out-of-water/

 

Quote

Meanwhile, the cost of desalinated water has been coming down as the technology evolves and the cost of other sources increases. In the last three decades, the cost of desalination has dropped by more than half.

 

And I wouldn't say its being ignored, either.

 

Quote

In 2016, California passed the Desalination Amendment, which tightened regulations for intake and brine disposal. Proponents of desalination contend the changes have been onerous and are slowing the march toward a desal future.

 

Because of the cost of seawater processing and the impacts on the ocean, much of the recent desalination growth has involved the use of brackish water. The solids in brackish water are one-tenth the amount in ocean water, and that makes the process much cheaper.

 

The regurgitation of saying green energy uses fossil fuels is having an arguement in a paper bag, we are trying to get away from fossil fuels and eventually will.

 

27 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

 

 

Ultimately, the solutions involve conserving, you know, that part of conservatism they don’t want to talk about, and seriously considering sustainability in everything from manufacturing to development. Some places simply shouldn’t have as many people because there’s not enough water to support ever larger populations there.

 

 

I mean, then where do people go? Do we jus abandon the southwestern United States because of how hard this is going to be?  California as a state is the fifth largest economy in the world, we can't jus abandon it.

[China]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

I mean, then where do people go? Do we jus abandon the southwestern United States because of how hard this is going to be?  California as a state is the fifth largest economy in the world, we can't jus abandon it.

 

I don't think anyone's saying abandon it.  But there needs to be zero population growth, and maybe a slight reduction.  But this is a self correcting problem, the high costs of living and limited water will eventually keep many people away.  After all California recently recorded its first population decline since 1850.  

[Jabbyrwock]

55 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

There are a few problems with these ideas. I question the ability of a country that can barely manage and maintain its current infrastructure to pull off a massive, probably decades long uphill pipeline project like this off. Also, who says the excess water in the MS river will continue to be a thing for essentially forever?

But wait, you say. Can’t we throw it over to our infinitely efficient, omniscient, and benevolent corporate overlords? They can fix it. The market can fix anything!

They might be able to pull it off, but adding a profit motive and middlemen would only exacerbate the issue with the government pipeline, ie cost. So you might get your water, but you probably wouldn’t be able to afford it.

Desalination is energy intensive and then there’s the problem of handling the brine and other concentrated badness it often produces. Ultimately, the solutions involve conserving, you know, that part of conservatism they don’t want to talk about, and seriously considering sustainability in everything from manufacturing to development. Some places simply shouldn’t have as many people because there’s not enough water to support ever larger populations there.

 

 

USBR did a study in 2009 or so on this:

 

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical Report F - Development of Options and Stategies/TR-F_Appendix4_FINAL.pdf

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, China said:

 

I don't think anyone's saying abandon it.  But there needs to be zero population growth, and maybe a slight reduction.  But this is a self correcting problem, the high costs of living and limited water will eventually keep many people away.  After all California recently recorded its first population decline since 1850.  

 

I dont know if that's really a plan, most Californians move to Texas, for example.

[China]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I dont know if that's really a plan, most Californians move to Texas, for example.

 

I'm all for sending them to places like Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.  Then at least there would be a reasonable population for those states so their Congressional representation isn't so disproportionate to their populatoin.

Edited November 23, 2021 by China

[Renegade7]

38 minutes ago, China said:

 

I'm all for sending them to places like Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.  Then at least there would be a reasonable population for those states so their Congressional representation isn't so disproportionate to their populatoin.

 

Sending them? You ask them first? They arwnr climate refugees yet.  What's those states water sources?

[China]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Sending them? You ask them first? They arwnr climate refugees yet.  What's those states water sources?

 

Ask for volunteers.  Incentivize them with deals on housing/real estate/loans/taxes, whatever.

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, China said:

 

Ask for volunteers.  Incentivize them with deals on housing/real estate/loans/taxes, whatever.

 

I mean, would that be cheaper then water pipes?  How does that work for a global problem with national borders to cross?

 

This sounds more like getting ready for the climate refugee crisis then trying to stop it from happening.

 

When I say folks are moving from Cali to Texas, a lot of that is cost of living, but there are jobs there.  What jobs are there in those middle of nowhere states?

[China]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I mean, would that be cheaper then water pipes?  How does that work for a global problem with national borders to cross?

 

This sounds more like getting ready for the climate refugee crisis then trying to stop it from happening.

 

When I say folks are moving from Cali to Texas, a lot of that is cost of living, but there are jobs there.  What jobs are there in those middle of nowhere states?

 

There are a lot of jobs now that can be done remotely.

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, China said:

 

There are a lot of jobs now that can be done remotely.

 

I work in IT, there a lot of IT jobs that can be remote, but powers that be don't want to.  And there are a lot of IT jobs that can't be 100% remote, like sys admins and network engineers. 

 

Thats not a plan, it can be part of an overall plan, but it should include accepting that many people won't leave where they want to be unless they have to. 

 

And waiting for nature to take its course from climate displacement is a bad idea.  

[China]

I never said I had a plan.

 

But I'm reminded of this.

 

 

[The Sisko]

16 hours ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

USBR did a study in 2009 or so on this:

 

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/finalreport/Technical Report F - Development of Options and Stategies/TR-F_Appendix4_FINAL.pdf

The chart below is from this study. There’s a whole lot of red and orange there with some yellow. If you look at the cost column, the only three that seem acceptable from that standpoint are low yield, which makes sense. Take a look at the legal column. There’s a whole lot of states, localities and individual landowners along the routes studied. So, many of these projects wouldn’t even get off the ground due to court challenges. The energy needs column is particularly brutal. Also, this report is almost a decade old. So costs would certainly be higher now.

 

I agree that desalination technology will get better from energy use and probably cost standpoints as well. However, they still need to figure out how to minimize the environmental damage because the nature of brine and concentration of elements in seawater won’t change.

 

Ultimately, I still think it will come down to population reductions and conservation. I think the best way to do that is to do nothing and let the increasing costs and unviability of some farmland in those areas take their natural toll. It’s the appropriate market-based solution IMO.

Edited November 24, 2021 by The Sisko

[Jabbyrwock]

55 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

The chart below is from this study. There’s a whole lot of red and orange there with some yellow. If you look at the cost column, the only three that seem acceptable from that standpoint are low yield, which makes sense. Take a look at the legal column. There’s a whole lot of states, localities and individual landowners along the routes studied. So, many of these projects wouldn’t even get off the ground due to court challenges. The energy needs column is particularly brutal. Also, this report is almost a decade old. So costs would certainly be higher now.

 

I agree that desalination technology will get better from energy use and probably cost standpoints as well. However, they still need to figure out how to minimize the environmental damage because the nature of brine and concentration of elements in seawater won’t change.

 

Ultimately, I still think it will come down to population reductions and conservation. I think the best way to do that is to do nothing and let the increasing costs and unviability of some farmland in those areas take their natural toll. It’s the appropriate market-based solution IMO.

 

Yup.  That legal column is a thing a whole lot of people forget.  When people think about infrastructure projects here in the US, look at China, and think "How come we can't build stuff like they do so quickly?" they don't realize the complete squashing of personal property rights that goes on in China for the "greater good" of society (as deemed by the CCP).

[Larry]

31 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

Yup.  That legal column is a thing a whole lot of people forget.  When people think about infrastructure projects here in the US, look at China, and think "How come we can't build stuff like they do so quickly?" they don't realize the complete squashing of personal property rights that goes on in China for the "greater good" of society (as deemed by the CCP).

Recall a perspective on how dictatorships can be an advantage. 
 

Heard an interview with an urban planner who was pushing the notion that huge buildings of apartments creates huge, traffic choked, streets between them, which causes the buildings to become islands. 
 

And he said he pitched his theory to the Chinese government. And three days later his company was put in charge of all urban planning for three cities, and told to implement his theories and see whether they worked. 
 

When Covid hit Wuhan, China built two hospitals of 2,000 beds each. In 6 weeks. And staffed them, with medical personnel drafted from elsewhere. 
 

Dictatorships may be dictatorships. But sometimes they have advantages. 

[China]

Southern California water supplier declares drought emergency, urges conservation

 

Directors of Southern California’s regional water wholesaler declared a drought emergency Tuesday, Nov. 9, calling on local water suppliers to implement all conservation measures possible to reduce usage.

 

“We need immediate action to preserve and stretch our limited State Water Project supplies,” Gloria D. Gray, chair of the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors, said in a statement. “Southern California on average gets about one-third of its water from Northern California via the state project. Next year, we’ll be lucky to get a small fraction of that.”

 

The declaration by the MWD board follows an Oct. 19 proclamation by Gov. Gavin Newsom of a statewide drought emergency. Newsom had previously issued the declaration for other parts of the state, but his October extension added eight counties that had originally been excluded — Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Bernardino, Ventura, Imperial and San Francisco.

 

In July, Newsom called on residents statewide to cut their water use by 15% below last year’s levels to help alleviate drought conditions. But state figures showed that by August, residents had only reduced use by about 5%.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

California water districts to get 0% of requested supplies amid dire drought conditions

 

Water agencies in drought-stricken California that serve 27 million residents and 750,000 acres of farmland won’t get any of the water they’ve requested from the state heading into 2022 other than what’s needed for critical health and safety, state officials announced Wednesday.

 

It’s the earliest date the Department of Water Resources has issued a 0% water allocation, a milestone that reflects the dire conditions in California as drought continues to grip the nation’s most populous state and reservoirs sit at historically low levels. State water officials said mandatory water restrictions could be coming and major water districts urged consumers to conserve.

 

“If conditions continue (to be) this dry, we will see mandatory cutbacks,” Karla Nemeth, director of DWR, told reporters.

 

The low allocation, while unprecedented, doesn’t mean Californians are at risk of losing water for drinking or bathing. The State Water Project is just one source of water for the 29 districts it supplies; others include the Colorado River and local storage projects.

 

The state will provide a small amount of water for health and safety needs to some of the districts that asked for it. But they won’t get water for any other purpose, such as irrigation, landscaping and gardening, which consume significant amounts of water.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Sisko]

On 11/23/2021 at 4:31 PM, China said:

Ask for volunteers.  Incentivize them with deals on housing/real estate/loans/taxes, whatever.

I took a little deeper dive into this and it turns out the specifics of this problem point to some possible solutions, at least over the intermediate term anyway. I also originally thought of moving folks to Idaho, Montana or other nearby states, but those aren't in great shape water wise either. Besides, no offense to those that may live there but who the hell really wants to live in Idaho, Montana, N/S Dakota, etc.? It's a beautiful part of the country but there's just no way in hell people accustomed to the climate in Arizona, NM, or California are going to move to those states. Nevermind whether those sparsely populated states could even absorb significant numbers of people anyway.

 

Almost half of water use nationwide is due to agriculture. It would be a good start to change farming practices to decrease water use. However I think most farming will have to move to areas where there's more water. This is probably more likely to successfully pull off than trying to move millions of individuals to other places or build elaborate pipeline projects that might never get off the ground or work as intended. So, I think moving agriculture is a better option, and it turns out that much of that is already happening.

 

I think allowing this to play out without messing with it will result in greater and faster relocation of agriculture as water shortages increase. Then there's the issue of reducing the need for so many farms by reducing meat consumption via simply letting prices for it to rise as a reflection of what's going on with production costs. That along with  further/better conservation efforts for public water use would probably carry us for some time. However, in the end, I suspect climate change will eventually win out.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by The Sisko

[China]

New Mexico preps for future shortages on Pecos River

 

New Mexico’s top water official has outlined a plan for dealing with future shortages on the Pecos River in southeastern New Mexico.

 

State Engineer John D'Antonio in a recent order called the situation urgent.

 

Water managers have been augmenting supplies in the region over the years by pumping groundwater. That has allowed farmers to irrigate crops and New Mexico to make good on its water-sharing agreement with Texas.

 

However, officials are warning that pumping might not be enough in future years given the persistent drought.

 

The latest outlook shows much of the Southwestern U.S. can expect drought to stick around at least through February.

[Jabbyrwock]

3 minutes ago, China said:

New Mexico preps for future shortages on Pecos River

 

New Mexico’s top water official has outlined a plan for dealing with future shortages on the Pecos River in southeastern New Mexico.

 

State Engineer John D'Antonio in a recent order called the situation urgent.

 

Water managers have been augmenting supplies in the region over the years by pumping groundwater. That has allowed farmers to irrigate crops and New Mexico to make good on its water-sharing agreement with Texas.

 

However, officials are warning that pumping might not be enough in future years given the persistent drought.

 

The latest outlook shows much of the Southwestern U.S. can expect drought to stick around at least through February.

 

Sadly John did not take my recommendation that we should all stop drinking water and substitute with high quality rum.

 

I suspect it would make the plants happy too.

 

[PokerPacker]

3 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

Sadly John did not take my recommendation that we should all stop drinking water and substitute with high quality rum.

 

I suspect it would make the plants happy too.

 

Ah, yes, the flower from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: Secret Of the Ooze.

[China]

Colorado's age-old water doctrine pushed to the brink by drought

 

In Evans, four miles south of Greeley, houses are shooting up.

 

Once a quiet farm town, Evans is scrambling to come up with enough water to slake the thirst of hundreds of new homeowners, drawn here by comparatively affordable housing.

Evans City Manager Jim Becklenberg says the town can supply the faucets of its 22,000 residents.

 

“We have enough water in our water portfolio to meet the needs of our existing population,” he said.

 

But future water needs will have to be met by developers, who are required to buy water and bring it to the city for use. It’s an expensive process that can often mean nearby irrigated farmland with old, high value water rights is bought and then dried up so the water can be transferred to cities.

 

While large northern Colorado cities like Loveland, Greeley and Fort Collins have older water rights, and have been able to buy extra water over the years, small cities like Evans haven’t had enough money to do so, Becklenberg said.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Despite snow, California still in drought

 

California’s mountain snow holds 160% of the water it normally does this time of year, state water officials announced Thursday, marking a strong start to the drought-stricken state’s traditionally wet winter season.

 

Still, it’s too early to determine whether California will see enough rain and snow in the months to come to put a dent in the drought.

 

The state is "definitely not out of the woods quite yet," said Sean de Guzman, manager of the snow surveys and water supply forecasting for the California Department of Water Resources.

 

The drought monitor maps show slight improvements for California. (National Drought Mitigation Center)

 

Click on the link for the full article

[EmirOfShmo]

Looks like SOCAL got too much too fast...

 

Sewage spill closes Southern California beaches

 

Southern California beaches from Orange to Los Angeles counties were closed over the holiday weekend after as many as 7 million gallons of untreated wastewater spilled into the Pacific Ocean, officials said Sunday.

The spill happened after a series of late December storms brought heavy rainfall to the area. A section of Los Angeles County-run sewage system "collapsed," sending untreated wastewater to already overwhelmed storm drains that lead to sea, some blocked by debris, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts said in a series of statements.

The collapse was reported Friday night in the city of Carson, and an emergency contractor quickly set up pumps to bypass the problem, but sewage continued to make it to sea the next day, according to the districts.

By New Year's Day additional bypass pumps and the last drops of rain had combined to help end the spill overnight, the sanitation officials said. 

 

https://news.yahoo.com/sewage-spill-closes-multiple-southern-040904962.html

[China]

California adopts water restrictions as drought drags on

 

For the second time in a decade, Californians will face mandatory restrictions governing their outdoor water use as the state endures another drought and voluntary conservation efforts have fallen short.

 

The rules adopted Tuesday by the State Water Resources Control Board are fairly mild — no watering lawns for 48 hours after a rainstorm or letting sprinklers run onto the sidewalk— and could take effect as soon as the end of the month. Scofflaws could face $500 daily fines, though regulators say they expect such fines will be rare, as they were in the last drought.

 

The action comes as Californians have failed to meet Gov. Gavin Newsom’s call for a voluntary 15% reduction in water use compared to last year. Between July and November, the state’s water usage went down just 6%.

 

The new restrictions follow an extremely wet December that state officials warned may not continue during the winter months that normally are the state’s wettest. Weather patterns have become more unpredictable due to climate change and state climatologist Michael Anderson said forecasts show January, February and March could be drier than average.

 

Click on the link for the full article