Water Wars and The Coming Western Drought

[Zan15]

Well, we could do things to stop climate change.

(1) Nuclear Power produces no carbon and other green house gases.
(2) All water infrastructure needs to be rebuilt and upgraded as vast amounts of water simply gets wasted.
(3) With power generation in a clean fashion handled, desalinization can be done.
(4) Change crops and industrial processes. We probably shouldn't be doing massive water intensive crops.
(5) Water conservation in the form of better pipes and limiting industrial and agricultural uses to necessary food crops that are adapted to the climate and maybe not run water intensive industries in deserts.

Also, how does "BUILD BIG PIPE! MAKE DESERT GREEN!" Solve climate change?

Desalinization is a massive amount of energy used for the amount of water provided. For someone who was so concerned about energy use in a new water system you seem to have ignored it here?

Nuclear Power produces a lot of waste that has no where to go.
Also sure the actual power production is quite green as long as we ignore.... uranium mining, uranium milling, conversion of uranium ore to uranium hexafluoride, uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction, reactor decommissioning, fuel reprocessing, nuclear waste disposal, mine cleaning and decontamination, etc etc...

I support it being part of the solution, but it still needs a lot of work.

[Shadowferal]

How often do earthquakes burst pipes in CA? /not sarcastic.

[Theodarzna]

Desalinization is a massive amount of energy used for the amount of water provided. For someone who was so concerned about energy use in a new water system you seem to have ignored it here?

Nuclear Power produces a lot of waste that has no where to go.
Also sure the actual power production is quite green as long as we ignore.... uranium mining, uranium milling, conversion of uranium ore to uranium hexafluoride, uranium enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction, reactor decommissioning, fuel reprocessing, nuclear waste disposal, mine cleaning and decontamination, etc etc...

I support it being part of the solution, but it still needs a lot of work.

See point One, nuclear generates electricity without using fossil fuels and a ton of it. That is why it is point one.

[Theodarzna]

@Theodarzna you only have to get it to the Colorado river. From there we have existing pipelines that can be expanded.

Okay, so we only need a 900 mile pipeline, that is 40 feet wide, with multiple pump systems and we assume that we won't be damaging the ecosystem where we drain this water from to refill, well, California need 11 trillion gallons all by itself in 2014. So Idk, assume its a fuck ton more than 11 trillion gallons. And for four states alongside California.

Yes, I am sure just sucking away enough water to make five largely arid states not endure the drought cycle won't damage the ecosystem back east, likewise that we could even build a water pipeline to move.... What? 11? 22? 55? 100? Trillion gallons of water, oh and that we could just build it tomorrow!

Gosh, I swear this is some PC2 level planning which my gut tells me you only are backing because I am against it and the law of MMO-C is strong here. Tell me, why hasn't the California Democratic Party considered this plan? Here since you guys will never admit this is ludicrous while I am trying to tell you it is, much as if I declared the sky blue you'd all declare it red, lets cite someone else:

Should Californians Resurrect a Plan to Pipe in Water From Alaska?

Californians are desperate for water, so you can't blame them for greedily eyeing the storm-sodden east. Look at all that snow! That's just frozen water, right? But seriously, trucking snow from Boston over the Rockies is a pipe dream. Or...not the right kind of pipe, anyway.

But what about Alaska? The state is weeping snowmelt into the North Pacific. Nobody's using it. It's close to California, relatively speaking. And a pipe wouldn't have to cross over any continental divides. It's so crazy it just might work!

Or is it? Hare-brained schemes to bring out-of-state water to California are nothing new, and this idea doesn't come from nowhere. It was born in the late 1980s by Alaskan governor Wally Hickel, who was always exuberant about selling his state's resources. The original plan called for four 14-foot diameter pipes running at least 1,400 miles from the mouth of one of southeast Alaska's monster rivers to one of California's reservoirs. These would deliver about 1.3 trillion gallons of water a year. (California is currently about 11 trillion gallons of water in deficit.) Either of the Alaskan rivers under consideration---the Copper and the Stikine---have outflows more than double the combined flow of the Sacramento/San Joaquin rivers, California's largest watershed. So it's not like Alaska would miss the water. "If you're going to put this symbolically, this project holds a lot of water," says Don Kash, an emeritus tech policy researcher at George Mason University and the chair of a two-day meeting in 1991 that discussed the pipeline's potential.

But water never comes for free. Laying pipeline on the continental shelf is tricky business and would require armies of surveyors (and navies of pipe-laying ships). And Alaska is north, but not uphill. The pipeline would need pumping stations every 150 miles to keep the water flowing. In 1991, the now-defunct congressional Office of Technology Assessment calculated that the water pipeline would cost $110 billion dollars and take up to 15 years to complete. In the same paper, they compared the project to the Panama Canal, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and the English Channel Tunnel in terms of cost and complexity. All of which, they added, went way over budget. On the other hand, if it had taken 15 years to build in 1991, Californians would have been drinking Alaska's Finest H20 since Justin Timberlake started bringing sexy back.

So yeah, this wouldn't be a cheap fix. The Office of Technology Assessment calculated that each one of those gallons of water would cost at least ten times as much as other options---in 1991 dollars. These alternatives included desalination, waste water reclamation, and plain ole' conservation. But the current drought is the worst in the state's history, and doesn't look likely to let up soon. On the other hand, the state's economy is better, and the tax base is about 8 million people stronger than 25 years ago. "The share of the cost would be spread out, and be spread out in a more significant way," says Nils Andreassen, the executive director of the Institute of the North, a natural resources think tank founded by Hickel after he retired from politics. So how does this idea sound now?

Unfortunately: Still crazy. “It’s just not something we’re even looking at,” says Nancy Vogel, a spokesperson for the California Department of Water Resources. Even with the extended drought and the expanded tax base, the cost of Alaskan water is too great. Partly that's because most of the water would go to crops, not cities, so the costs would be passed on to food markets. "Having water that is this expensive go to agricultural crops is the kind of thing that would cause economists hair to go white," says Kash. And even though advances in pipe laying logistics and materials have driven the engineering costs of the project down, it's probable that modern environmental permitting would more than make up for those cuts in cost. "I think the biggest question would be, how does it impact fisheries?" says Andreassen. Because you know, putting a huge suction pipe at the mouth of a river doesn't sound like it would help baby salmon get out to sea. And then there's the question of invasive species: What kind of health risks would we face if the larvae from Alaska's Jurassic-sized mosquito snuck into the pipe?

(source)

Now it is possible that *checks notes* Vegas82 and Zan15 over on the World of Warcraft political discussion forum are better civil engineers, climate experts and public policy guru's than every governor since 1991 and everyone working on the states resources since 1991, that IS possible, but I highly doubt that the brain trust at MMO-C has thought of a brilliant plan that the California Democratic Party legislature and Governor didn't think of.

At this point you guys sound like dedicated Trumpers. Like what do you believe that your the first to come up with this hair brained scheme? Or the first to float it to just the state of California? Tell me guys, use your supreme intellect and explain then why Gavin Newsom? Jerry Brown? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Gray Davis and so on and so forth have never gone in for this plan?

[callipygoustp]

Well write to Gavin Newsom and call him a complete idiot along with every governor of the state eve.

Might be your communication style. Most definitely isn't mine.

[Theodarzna]

No, we need multiple pipelines covering distances and terrain we routinely build pipelines across. Then a few aqueducts. It’s not that tough. Aren’t you some kind of teacher?

Now, guys, serious geniuses that is, can you explain WHY these states haven't done this? I'll relent and accept your boundless wisdom that this plan is both perfect and an easy solution. All my points must be wrong, obviously. So given that none of my points could possibly explain why they don't do it because of how exceptionally wrong they are obviously, can you or @Zan15 or @callipygoustp explain this strange situation were an obviously perfect, simple and doable solution was not tried by the likes of Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom? Are they dumb? Why haven't we done it?

Are the dumb? Corrupt? Agents of shadowy cabals or foreign adversaries undermining the Left Coast of America? Surely the Democratically held governments of the west coast states can build a pipeline? Right? So what is it?

[Zan15]

See point One, nuclear generates electricity without using fossil fuels and a ton of it. That is why it is point one.

no one said it didn't. want to address the rest of the problems with nuclear?

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so we only need a 900 mile pipeline, that is 40 feet wide, with multiple pump systems and we assume that we won't be damaging the ecosystem where we drain this water from to refill, well, California need 11 trillion gallons all by itself in 2014. So Idk, assume its a fuck ton more than 11 trillion gallons. And for four states alongside California.

?

Oh god, no one is trying to reverse a drought so 11 trillion gallons is not needed for an area that only uses 1 trillion a year.

Yes, I am sure just sucking away enough water to make five largely arid states not endure the drought cycle won't damage the ecosystem back east, likewise that we could even build a water pipeline to move.... What? 11? 22? 55? 100? Trillion gallons of water, oh and that we could just build it tomorrow!

Gosh, I swear this is some PC2 level planning which my gut tells me you only are backing because I am against it and the law of MMO-C is strong here. Tell me, why hasn't the California Democratic Party considered this plan? Here since you guys will never admit this is ludicrous while I am trying to tell you it is, much as if I declared the sky blue you'd all declare it red, lets cite someone else:

NY proved you wrong, again.
B. They would need the feds to get involved and approve/run the project since its interstate.
C. No one said it would be easy, fast or cheap....only you.

Gosh, I swear this is some PC2 level planning which my gut tells me you only are backing because I am against it and the law of MMO-C is strong here. Tell me, why hasn't the California Democratic Party considered this plan? Here since you guys will never admit this is ludicrous while I am trying to tell you it is, much as if I declared the sky blue you'd all declare it red, lets cite someone else:

Should Californians Resurrect a Plan to Pipe in Water From Alaska?


(source)

they can't build a tunnel from the UK to France, no way!!!!

So just because one plan is rediclous they all must be!!!

Now it is possible that *checks notes* Vegas82 and Zan15 over on the World of Warcraft political discussion forum are better civil engineers, climate experts and public policy guru's than every governor since 1991 and everyone working on the states resources since 1991, that IS possible, but I highly doubt that the brain trust at MMO-C has thought of a brilliant plan that the California Democratic Party legislature and Governor didn't think of.

At this point you guys sound like dedicated Trumpers. Like what do you believe that your the first to come up with this hair brained scheme? Or the first to float it to just the state of California? Tell me guys, use your supreme intellect and explain then why Gavin Newsom? Jerry Brown? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Gray Davis and so on and so forth have never gone in for this plan?

NY proved you wrong...again. i lost count what is that 20 times so far?

Also CA has built multiple water transportation, collection, pumping, aquaducts, etc etc since 1991. Spent tens of billions on the system projects. Or do you think that system just appeared out of nowhere?

[Theodarzna]

no one said it didn't. want to address the rest of the problems with nuclear?

When I get an explanation out of you why Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown, and every governor since this idea was first proposed in 1991 never did what you guys claim is such a simple and easy solution. Obviously every point I made must be so laughably wrong, of-course, but, for some reason Democrats across three states never followed through on the plan you guys have here which is so obviously perfect and easy simple and doable, yet for some unknown reason (Certainly none given by me apparently) they haven't done it.

It's obviously not power supply issues, and clearly moving that much water is so easy yet for some reason neither Gavin Newsom, nor Jerry brown, nor John Kitzhaber, nor Kate Brown, nor Christine Gregoire, nor Jay Inslee, all Democrats, all part of that most noble of Science Trusting, Expert Listening party the Democratic Party have all for some inexplicable reason REFUSED to do this. Are they not trusting science? Are they ignoring experts? I mean clearly it is doable, you guys have all been pretty clear on that.

So why, Why Zan15, Why have six Democratic governors across three states not built a big pipe from the rainy lands of Seattle down to California? Or a big pipe to Memphis to sip from the Mississippi? What gives?

[Zan15]

No, we need multiple pipelines covering distances and terrain we routinely build pipelines across. Then a few aqueducts. It’s not that tough. Aren’t you some kind of teacher?

He is igorning the fact that NY did it as well as several other places across the world.

but but it can't be done in CA.... oh wait it already was several times already.


@Theodarzna where do you think all these aquaducts, pumps, etc etc came from?
they have aquaducts and water being transported all over CA. Some from the very far north to the mid/southern parts of CA.

One is 444 miles long.

But you can't do it from another state??
They haven't done anything since 1991?

but but think of the power usage

the water system......generating an average of 6,500 GWh of hydroelectricity annually. However, as it is the largest single consumer of power in the state itself, it has a net usage of 5,100 GWh. So umm, its generates its own electricity with extra left over.

Think of the cost!! The SWP provides estimated annual benefits of $400 billion to California's economy.





- - - Updated - - -

When I get an explanation out of you why Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown, and every governor since this idea was first proposed in 1991 never did what you guys claim is such a simple and easy solution. Obviously every point I made must be so laughably wrong, of-course, but, for some reason Democrats across three states never followed through on the plan you guys have here which is so obviously perfect and easy simple and doable, yet for some unknown reason (Certainly none given by me apparently) they haven't done it.

It's obviously not power supply issues, and clearly moving that much water is so easy yet for some reason neither Gavin Newsom, nor Jerry brown, nor John Kitzhaber, nor Kate Brown, nor Christine Gregoire, nor Jay Inslee, all Democrats, all part of that most noble of Science Trusting, Expert Listening party the Democratic Party have all for some inexplicable reason REFUSED to do this. Are they not trusting science? Are they ignoring experts? I mean clearly it is doable, you guys have all been pretty clear on that.

So why, Why Zan15, Why have six Democratic governors across three states not built a big pipe from the rainy lands of Seattle down to California? Or a big pipe to Memphis to sip from the Mississippi? What gives?

Because its an interstate infrastructure project. One word, Republicans at the federal and local level.

Gov's cannot approve this level of spending. Do you not know how spending is approved at the state level?
Gov's have to go through federal land and cannot approve this type of project with out them

Just because its easy and do-able does not mean you are going to get voters to approve it.

the 444 mile long CA aquaduct, for which CA would be doomed without, came very close to not being approved on the ballot. Oh wait you didn't apparently know you needed that level of approval for projects like this did you?

[Shalcker]

See point One, nuclear generates electricity without using fossil fuels and a ton of it. That is why it is point one.

Nuclear power generation is in it's base thermal - which can be used for desalination directly without electricity conversion loss using basic evaporation.

- - - Updated - - -

By boiling massive amounts of water…

Which is one of ways to desalinate water. If you would do purpose-built nuclear desalination plant you could skip electricity generating turbines and use full nuclear thermal power generation for that purpose.

[Shalcker]

The boiled water goes through turbines to produce electricity….

You could skip it for desalination and just pump steam to thermal exchange with seawater.

[Shalcker]

Sounds like a shitty idea considering Fukishima.

It's freaking hot water, what Fukushima has to do with it?

It never even touches irradiated parts in normal operations.

Add in that California is set to shut down the last of their nuclear plants this decade(with years of clean up to follow) and a general lack of a way for us to deal with nuclear waste? Yeah, I’ll skip the silly idea of nuclear desal.

That's just usual anti-science attitude.

Brine disposal would be much bigger problem for desalination then nuclear waste.

[Theodarzna]

Take a civics course or ask a colleague to tutor you on how US government works?

Ah, so you have nothing and no answers. You basically came in here to get some high fives for dunking on someone, and took a ridiculous position you've spent five seconds thinking about and took up solely because I opposed it and literally have nothing to offer here. I shall now say that grass is green and look forward to your emphatic posts about how they are purple.

Magical. Which explains why not a single fact or anything has been given by you.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

How exactly do you think they boil the water?

Nuclear power plants have at least two circuits. The primary is a closed loop which goes trough the reactor and then a heath exchanger. The secondary draws heath from the heath exchanger before being used, and is not in contact with radioactive elements.

[Theodarzna]

Because its an interstate infrastructure project. One word, Republicans at the federal and local level.

Gavin Newsom, nor Jerry brown, nor John Kitzhaber, nor Kate Brown, nor Christine Gregoire, nor Jay Inslee are not Republicans. A pipeline from say Seattle to California's Central Valley doesn't have much in the way of Republicans. Heck it was a Alaskan Independence governor Wally Hickel, former Richard Nixon cabinet member so not a Democrat was the first big name to float the idea in 1991. Plus, the "Build big Pipe!" is a plan floated more by Billionaires and celebrities like William Shatner. So fan's of the "BIG PIPE! BIG PIPE MAKE DESERT GREEN! MAKE PIPE!" plan are Alaska Independence/Nixon Admin alumni, Billionaires and television stars, and its opponents seem to be every elected Democratic party politician, environmental groups, and anybody running State water management officials.

- - - Updated - - -

I have quite a bit, but you live in a fantasy land and it’s hard to muster the energy to waste on you.

So far you seem to only have the energy to keep hoping for some high fives from the MMO-C usual clique, while defending an obviously ludicrous set of position's and being totally unable to even defend it.

[Zan15]

Ah, so you have nothing and no answers. You basically came in here to get some high fives for dunking on someone, and took a ridiculous position you've spent five seconds thinking about and took up solely because I opposed it and literally have nothing to offer here. I shall now say that grass is green and look forward to your emphatic posts about how they are purple.

Magical. Which explains why not a single fact or anything has been given by you.

Because the answer is that simple when you are talking about something the Gov of the state cannot approve unilaterally.
Sorry but its that simple and has been explained already.

Here's a little article about some of the past approvals since you think they haven't done anything since 1991 and gives you an idea on how things are done in "weird" CA.

https://www.wateronline.com/doc/cali...and-small-0001
https://www.waterworld.com/drinking-...t-nov-4-ballot

Oh and a simple google search would tell you why people like Brown could not get shit done because the people of the state, the pols and the federal govt have not supported having an interstate solution to the problem. Short term thinking instead of long term solutions.


Not sure why its so far fetched they already built a 444 mile long system inside of CA. They could build one from the northern reservoirs up north to several states and even Canada.

Far fetched?? Somehow piping oil from Canadian tar sands to the gulf coast is possible, approved and ready to be built....but moving water 1/4 the distance is too hard??? that tiny little 3 ft pipeline (in relative terms vs NYC 12-20 ft wide pipelines) was going to move 34,860,000 gallons of oil a day. Water is even easier to move since you can build much cheaper aqueducts instead of actual pipelines.

You act like none of this has been done before.

- - - Updated - - -

Gavin Newsom, nor Jerry brown, nor John Kitzhaber, nor Kate Brown, nor Christine Gregoire, nor Jay Inslee are not Republicans. A pipeline from say Seattle to California's Central Valley doesn't have much in the way of Republicans. Heck it was a Alaskan Independence governor Wally Hickel, former Richard Nixon cabinet member so not a Democrat was the first big name to float the idea in 1991. Plus, the "Build big Pipe!" is a plan floated more by Billionaires and celebrities like William Shatner. So fan's of the "BIG PIPE! BIG PIPE MAKE DESERT GREEN! MAKE PIPE!" plan are Alaska Independence/Nixon Admin alumni, Billionaires and television stars, and its opponents seem to be every elected Democratic party politician, environmental groups, and anybody running State water management officials.


So far you seem to only have the energy to keep hoping for some high fives from the MMO-C usual clique, while defending an obviously ludicrous set of position's and being totally unable to even defend it.

sigh, keep quoting ridiculous plans instead of actual real plans and ones that have already been completed since 1991 and ones being proposed.

Again not understanding how CA works as far as project approvals and how interstate projects work and get approved really makes it hard to have a serious discussion with you.

[Acidbaron]

Instead of thinking in terms of wars and international conflicts we can look at how to optimize what water we actually have if you know how much drinkable water is wasted in many industries pair that with how poorly maintained water pipes are and distribution networks in general, in my region 167 million liters are lost per day due to leaks.

We can solve a whole lot, sure it is a finite resource but we are wasteful of it pretty much every where in the western world. We can do a lot and do not have to go into extremes of actual political or regional conflicts if we do so.

[Rasulis]

Before CA resort to transporting water across the continent, there are other things that the state could do to lessen the impact of the tightening water supply.

More conservation, especially in the agriculture industry. The majority of the agriculture in CA still use flooding irrigation system. The state should mandate subsurface drip system (SDI) which delivers water directly to the root system. The almond industry, which accounts for 10% of water usage in CA, could really benefit from this. The new acreage already use the system. However, it is more difficult to convert the existing almond farms to SDI. Not impossible, just harder.

Mixed crops. Avocado farmers in San Diego have been planting coffee in the midst of their avocado groves. With great results. The coffee plants provide additional cover to keep moisture in the ground, and CA coffee goes for $22 per pound. More expensive than Kona coffee. The same could be done for almond trees which are planted 50 feet apart. The space between the trees could be used to plant cover crops which function the same as the coffee plants.

I have already mentioned it before, reclaimed water (toilet to tap) is a great source of water. So far less than 18% of CA sewage is reused as domestic water. The state can bump this up to 80%. Even 100%. The state gets drinking water and less pollutants go into the ocean.

The same goes for storm water runoff. They can be captured in bio-infiltration systems and reintroduced back into the groundwater. Which then can be reused for domestic or agricultural purposes. I don't think the ocean will miss those water.

Desalination plants should also be part of the solution. Those plants are expensive, consume a lot of energy and we have the brine to deal with. However, they are guaranteed water. Unlike the ever declining Lake Mead. The cost is getting lower with introduction of new technologies. The same with the power consumption. The new desalination plant in Huntington Beach is supposed to be net zero. The brine issue can be mitigated also. Built the plant in an area where the sea floor is already impacted. Or locate the plant in the vicinity of a power plant, and the brine can be mixed with the coolant water from the power plant in a holding pond before being released back into the ocean. Locate the plant in a place with strong current to disperse the brine faster. Which is true of most CA's coast. Use the brine to harvest lithium. Also, why not harvest the salt out of the brine. If they don't want to use the salt for human consumption, it still can be used for industrial purposes. Etc.

[Zan15]

Before CA resort to transporting water across the continent, there are other things that the state could do to lessen the impact of the tightening water supply.

More conservation, especially in the agriculture industry. The majority of the agriculture in CA still use flooding irrigation system. The state should mandate subsurface drip system (SDI) which delivers water directly to the root system. The almond industry, which accounts for 10% of water usage in CA, could really benefit from this. The new acreage already use the system. However, it is more difficult to convert the existing almond farms to SDI. Not impossible, just harder.

Mixed crops. Avocado farmers in San Diego have been planting coffee in the midst of their avocado groves. With great results. The coffee plants provide additional cover to keep moisture in the ground, and CA coffee goes for $22 per pound. More expensive than Kona coffee. The same could be done for almond trees which are planted 50 feet apart. The space between the trees could be used to plant cover crops which function the same as the coffee plants.

I have already mentioned it before, reclaimed water (toilet to tap) is a great source of water. So far less than 18% of CA sewage is reused as domestic water. The state can bump this up to 80%. Even 100%. The state gets drinking water and less pollutants go into the ocean.

The same goes for storm water runoff. They can be captured in bio-infiltration systems and reintroduced back into the groundwater. Which then can be reused for domestic or agricultural purposes. I don't think the ocean will miss those water.

Desalination plants should also be part of the solution. Those plants are expensive, consume a lot of energy and we have the brine to deal with. However, they are guaranteed water. Unlike the ever declining Lake Mead. The cost is getting lower with introduction of new technologies. The same with the power consumption. The new desalination plant in Huntington Beach is supposed to be net zero. The brine issue can be mitigated also. Built the plant in an area where the sea floor is already impacted. Or locate the plant in the vicinity of a power plant, and the brine can be mixed with the coolant water from the power plant in a holding pond before being released back into the ocean. Locate the plant in a place with strong current to disperse the brine faster. Which is true of most CA's coast. Use the brine to harvest lithium. Also, why not harvest the salt out of the brine. If they don't want to use the salt for human consumption, it still can be used for industrial purposes. Etc.

Its should be done in conjuncture with an infrastructure plan to move water.

You have to plan for the next few decades now as its going to take that long to build out a system that will meet the needs of the country in a few decades.

[cubby]

Before CA resort to transporting water across the continent, there are other things that the state could do to lessen the impact of the tightening water supply.

More conservation, especially in the agriculture industry. The majority of the agriculture in CA still use flooding irrigation system. The state should mandate subsurface drip system (SDI) which delivers water directly to the root system. The almond industry, which accounts for 10% of water usage in CA, could really benefit from this. The new acreage already use the system. However, it is more difficult to convert the existing almond farms to SDI. Not impossible, just harder.

Mixed crops. Avocado farmers in San Diego have been planting coffee in the midst of their avocado groves. With great results. The coffee plants provide additional cover to keep moisture in the ground, and CA coffee goes for $22 per pound. More expensive than Kona coffee. The same could be done for almond trees which are planted 50 feet apart. The space between the trees could be used to plant cover crops which function the same as the coffee plants.

I have already mentioned it before, reclaimed water (toilet to tap) is a great source of water. So far less than 18% of CA sewage is reused as domestic water. The state can bump this up to 80%. Even 100%. The state gets drinking water and less pollutants go into the ocean.

The same goes for storm water runoff. They can be captured in bio-infiltration systems and reintroduced back into the groundwater. Which then can be reused for domestic or agricultural purposes. I don't think the ocean will miss those water.

Desalination plants should also be part of the solution. Those plants are expensive, consume a lot of energy and we have the brine to deal with. However, they are guaranteed water. Unlike the ever declining Lake Mead. The cost is getting lower with introduction of new technologies. The same with the power consumption. The new desalination plant in Huntington Beach is supposed to be net zero. The brine issue can be mitigated also. Built the plant in an area where the sea floor is already impacted. Or locate the plant in the vicinity of a power plant, and the brine can be mixed with the coolant water from the power plant in a holding pond before being released back into the ocean. Locate the plant in a place with strong current to disperse the brine faster. Which is true of most CA's coast. Use the brine to harvest lithium. Also, why not harvest the salt out of the brine. If they don't want to use the salt for human consumption, it still can be used for industrial purposes. Etc.

Those are terrific idea - I actually just messaged my wife's family because of one of those items you listed.

Question: those suggestions above, would they be enough to not only meet the current expected shortage this year, but also the increased expected shortages as we see drought weather worsen. @Zan15 pointed out that all of those processes will take time to implement, and by the time they do, the water shortage will be that much worse. Can they overcome that, too?