California's Water Crisis. Why?

I'm not saying don't let anyone move in. I'm saying control it. There is no reason to have a glut of empty housing on the market. And empty, unmaintained foreclosures further lower property values. I live in an area where they tear down single family homes to build apartment buildings when the current apartments are empty. That makes no sense. So let them move. They'll just have to work harder at finding some place to live. It might cut down on the people who move here clueless hoping to figure it out as they go along; no job lined up, no housing, no friends, just decided to move to So. Cal. Geesh.

 

Is there any reason a Desalination plant can't be run by Solar and wind?

 

I haven't read anything to indicate the Tampa desalination (note the word is spelled differently than my previous posts) project was created to overcome water deficits. If that were the driving force, it might have been built in the Southwest or California, where water issues are greater than in Florida Aquifer water is free for watering lawns, and there's so much of it that no one complains if sprinkler heads water asphalt roads. Not the same mindset as Californians, but different places get to make different rules).

I'm frightened of your "only economic solutions have a hope of working with the present US population" statement. You seem to be advocating higher prices, higher taxes, restricted use and more government power, rather than finding a real solution that protects our freedoms. That's why I brought up the Tampa plant. Here's someone spending $110 million or more of his own money (several someones apparently) to create a way to add to the fresh water supply. Isn't that more akin to the attitude that gave us a free America originally and more distant from the socialist attitude that is so prevalent today? Let's at least try to give Americans more credit than to say they are sheep ready for the economic slaughter.

 

Free to waste water?

Okay. So. Cal.

Who pays for the plant? If the taxpayer does, does that give them the right to have the water for free and waste it? If you're going to charge for the water the plant produces how to do differentiate between that water and the other water we pay for?

If it's private funding for the plant....how do they sell it? They sure aren't going to give it away for free.

Nothing is free in So. Cal. We pay to buy the water then pay sewer fees to ....you know. We pay for our trash to be picked up. If they could charge for sunlight and oxygen they would.

 

Knowing that the state population isn't going to do any thing but increase! I think now would be the time to actually build 3 or 4 of them and get ahead of the curve. Look at it as an investment, so you pay to build it. Your metered rates should be kept at x amount considering long term opperational expenses ect. Nothing alse, petition you state reps and stay on their collective @sses!

But I woul also look at getting them to do some thing about out dated water rights too!

No lawns, rock gardens and golf courses pay double to water.

 

This does not make sense. The desal plant was built entirely due to the aquifer getting very close to flowing in the reverse direction...i.e. saltwater intrusion. Originally Pinellas County was supplied entirely by the aquifer. Now the water is a blend from the aquifer, the desal plant, and surface water. This is the graph of water extracted:



In fact, about 10 years ago the sprinkler well at my house went dry due to lower water level. This is the measured result of taking all that water (First year about 1930, last year 2000):



Note that this is a lot closer to you than me, but it is the water that both of us depend on. However much there is, we are using it faster than nature can replace it.

The graph above cannot go down forever. Once it reaches the center of the earth, where do we go from there? This is the environmental forum you are in. Help out. What is your solution to prevent total collapse of the aquifer?

It is silly to think that I have a socialist attitude or want (your and my) taxes to go up. I absolutely do not want that....but I do want to solve the problem of overuse. The desal plant was NOT a gift. It was built to make money for the investors. However, it takes a lot of energy and we know the price of energy will go up....so I expect that water prices must go up to provide the water. This is the economics I am talking about. I expect that the situation is just like using big SUVs, it takes 4/gal gas to wake someone up to there wastefulness. The same looks to be true with water.

 

SoCal'ers do pay for their sunlight, for the right to live in what many consider the perfect climate. Payment is in the form of incredibly high property values. SoCal is such a highly coveted place to live that people are willing to pay more for the privilege, thus sustaining the inflated real estate market. Hence, what we call the "sunshine tax".

Now the Oxygen ... I hope it never comes to the point where the variation in air quality has such an effect on property values.

 

FL, I think the solution is a couple more desal plants on each side of the state. Shouldn't just be Florida, should be looking at this where ever a state sits on the ocean.

We draw a lot of our water from a nasty river and Aquifers. If the C of Engineers had finished what they started 50 years ago, we wouldn't be drawing down ours either. Once these babies are gone it's going to be hell to pay. Sink holes and no water.

 

Funny thing . . . if SoCal'ers are paying for sunshine, they are getting ripped off!

Of the top ten sunniest cities in the USA, three are in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley in California. Redding, Sacramento, and Fresno.
NCDC: December 2007 City/State Extremes

AND we have the water! At least that which SoCal hasn't stole.

 

i grow over 30,000# of avocados per year.

since Jan'08, my grove has been on a mandatory/required "30% reduction" of irrigation water (vs 06-07 year).

in order to comply, i had to reduce the size of my grove by 30% (i.e. stumped 100 trees).

that means, 30% less crop for sale next year, and thus i will receive 30% less in proceeds.

hence, in theory, w/ 30% less revenue, i will purchase 30% less of goods and services.

additionally, the retail price of avocados (and other agriculture) on your grocer's shelves will further increase next year due to decreased production and increased costs to market.

it's a trickle down effect.

 

Don't do avocados but get your point. Just has to be a better way than how things where done in the past. Sucking the aquifers dry isn't the answer either, once they are gone then your 30,000#s becomes 0#s. You should be one of the ones coming up with new methods, if you had you would still have the other 30%. Not trying to be a jerk!

Could become some thing else we out source, to say, SA.

 

Great . . . . someone who knows what they are talking about that I can ask a question of:

Are avocados something which could be grown using a drip irrigation system?

The reason I ask; I feel the state should start a program whereby they give farmers, ranchers, etc. rebates for installing drip irrigation systems for produce which can be grown using drip, or other major water saving systems . . . and also give credits for the amounts of water NOT used.

I feel this would be a win for everyone.
You the farmer would pay less for the water needed to grow your crop.
We the consumer would pay less for food . . . especially if farmers like you don't have to succumb to letting crops wither on the vine.
And the environment would be helped with less polluted ag runoff, and more water available to flush out the rivers and delta for fish and other wildlife.

Sure, some crops like rice just won't grow on drip systems.
Other crops thrive on drip, but the cost of drip systems is probably prohibitively expensive for farmers to install without financial incentives.

Would something like that work for you if extra costs or burdens were compensated?

What other crops do you feel could be converted to drip system?

A friend of mine owns and lives on a vineyard in the Napa Valley. He is on drip and says it works great . . . but I haven't talked the financial aspects with him.

EDIT: WoW . . . F8L posts about drip as I was constructing my post. Sorry, didn't see the earlier post which mentions drip either.

 

They do irrigation in Minn, South Dak, and possibly in ND. It's the geyser stream on wheels. Makes you think every time you see one, how much is wasted to evap.

And fertilizer by the ton that runs off into streams and lakes. Not to mention the other chems. I would think there would be an all around better way of doing it, be it tax incentives and assistance with the tech part.

But I suppose if you oun the land, you can just drill a well and pump away!

 

your post reminds me of a thought i had SEVERAL years ago... having twice spent extended stays in RV's or campers while building the family home (there was 5 of us and once it was in a 20 ft camper...NOT FUN!!)...

the problem with holding tanks is the smell, and there is no real way of preventing that without a trap. made me think that instead of adding a trap which would waste huge amounts of water, how about a vent fan to draw the odor up a stack and away from living quarters... obviously with portable power to consider in an RV, probably not cost effective...

but in a regular home, the power needs for such a system would be minimaal and would save a TON of water...

sooo, what are the drawbacks to this? say having a holding tank for the entire house with a straight pipe feed that holds says 20 gallons and having it automatically dump when a certain level is hit. designing toilets so the user controls the fill....#2 with extra water, #1 with only a cup to rinse??

 

None at all, with the usual caveats about the need for an extensive electric distribution system and/or energy storage system and/or fast backup power sources to prevent interruption of service at night, during cloudy days or adverse wind conditions. One nice feature of nuclear combined power and desalination is that the waste heat from the reactors and turbines can be used to help drive the desalination process, making the overall system more compact and efficient.

It would be a good thing to let more rivers run wild while still meeting human needs. Imagine one day dismantling the Hetch Hetchy dam and restoring the valley behind it: it would be like a second Yosemite.

 

We have no smell from our holding tank. The secret is to use the proper materials. Most RVs use rubber hoses which become gas (stink) permeable after awhile. We use ridged plumbing, and a high-density polyethylene tank. Our marine head has valves which keep any smell from backing into the toilet bowl. There is a small vent which releases a stink when you flush. Ours is routed outside and away from people. Some boats use a charcoal canister on the vent to absorb the stink, but it's better to keep it away from people where it doesn't cause any trouble.

Tom

 

ok cool. i will admit all my experiences are decades old. (most recent expericence was 1990 when building my house, but that was in a 1977 5th wheel!!)

but my post begs the question, why are we using the most wasteful system available for homes in water restricted areas? what are the drawbacks to the system i suggest?

is it additional maintenance? extra fans, level sensors, etc? it seems like the plumbing issues, additional expense for dump tank would be partially overcome by a much simpler plumbing system... granted a little room would have to be taken for the tank since a basement location would not work for a gravity flow dump...

any thoughts?? we need a plumber's input!