Water Wars and The Coming Western Drought

[Theodarzna]

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?

Well, time is a problem on all fronts. It could take decades to build a big pipe from Memphis to California's central valley, or even decades just from Seattle to Sacramento. As Zan15 pointed out in all his examples, these were multi decade projects that also carried less water than was needed across geography much smaller.

In terms of sheer waste of water though, we could make the drought something less damaging or severe if we say learned lessons of many countries that thrive with even less water and no end of that condition. California especially but the entire region between the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada is a big desert. At the very least the lifestyle and water resource management should reflect that the western half of the United States is in fact mostly a desert.

[Zan15]

Well, time is a problem on all fronts. It could take decades to build a big pipe from Memphis to California's central valley, or even decades just from Seattle to Sacramento. As Zan15 pointed out in all his examples, these were multi decade projects that also carried less water than was needed across geography much smaller.

In terms of sheer waste of water though, we could make the drought something less damaging or severe if we say learned lessons of many countries that thrive with even less water and no end of that condition. California especially but the entire region between the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada is a big desert. At the very least the lifestyle and water resource management should reflect that the western half of the United States is in fact mostly a desert.

You can vastly speed up those projects with more money and a quicker timeline.
NYC did not need to make the process fast and expensive since they had two working tunnels and systems that would more than meet the needs for decades. They went with the cheaper slow segemented approach of doing one section at a time.

This is why is said these long term solutions would be in addition to immediate ways to conserve and collect/process water.

[Rasulis]

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?

I think it is possible to meet California water need without piping water from the great US lakes. However, there has to be a shift in thinking about water that changes how cities are designed. The early 20th century floods caused tremendous damage throughout Southern California. So California urban infrastructure was build to get rid of stormwater; get rid of wastewater, and treat them as liability. Not as valuable resources.

We channeled our rivers and we lined them with concrete so we could get rid of water faster. Some estimates that more than 80% of the annual rainfall ends up diverted from urban areas in Southern California into the Pacific Ocean. We are talking about trillions of gallons of rain water. The same with our sewage. Point Loma Waste Water Treatment Plant alone on average dump 145 million gallon of treated sewer per day into the Pacific Ocean. That's greater than the daily water use of the City of San Diego.

California need to increase its ability to capture those urban runoff and reclaimed its sewage. It’s going to take time and a lot of money to save the significant amounts of rainwater and sewage now being lost to the Pacific Ocean. It is still going to be a lot cheaper and quicker than building giant pipelines to transport water cross-country across multiple states from the great lakes.

[Zan15]

I think it is possible to meet California water need without piping water from the great US lakes. However, there has to be a shift in thinking about water that changes how cities are designed. The early 20th century floods caused tremendous damage throughout Southern California. So California urban infrastructure was build to get rid of stormwater; get rid of wastewater, and treat them as liability. Not as valuable resources.

We channeled our rivers and we lined them with concrete so we could get rid of water faster. Some estimates that more than 80% of the annual rainfall ends up diverted from urban areas in Southern California into the Pacific Ocean. We are talking about trillions of gallons of rain water. The same with our sewage. Point Loma Waste Water Treatment Plant alone on average dump 145 million gallon of treated sewer per day into the Pacific Ocean. That's almost the daily water use of the City of San Diego.

California need to increase its ability to capture those urban runoff and reclaimed its sewage. It’s going to take time and a lot of money to save the significant amounts of rainwater and sewage now being lost to the Pacific Ocean. It is still going to be a lot cheaper and quicker than building giant pipelines to transport water cross-country across multiple states from the great lakes.

Don't need to get it from the great lakes when you can go north instead.
Don't need pipelines when you can build aquaducts for much of the project.

i do agree with your points on stormwater and wastewater, started in with that as one of my first comments.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53224038

[Ripster42]

Can anyone tell me when the last interstate aqueduct was built? 115 years ago? Something like that? How did water rights come into play during planning? How do the states upstream of california feel about that aqueduct? Are they likely to want to repeat the process? Would other states, having seen the problems involved, be excited about joining the project? The idea of using the mississippi or the great lakes for Cali's water is nothing but a fever dream even if you discount the laughably absurd logistical problems that would exist.

If this discussion has moved on from "use the great lakes and the mississippi", which is just, again, an absurd solution, to "move the water from northern california to southern california" there's a chance it might happen. There's at least somewhat favorable terrain from northern to southern california, there'd be one less level of bureaucracy to deal with, and the political shitstorm wouldn't be a shitnado. Nevada and utah, you're SoL. You don't have an untapped watershed. Ditto arizona (the rio grande water rights are set by international treaty). If you're talking about taking water from oregon or further north, California is also SoL. California doesn't have the water rights to oregon's or washington's water. You'd have to get it through the senate, and I can't imagine any state wanting to set the precedent of allowing one state to steal another's water. Cali only has 2 senators.

[Milchshake]

Can anyone tell me when the last interstate aqueduct was built? 115 years ago? Something like that? How did water rights come into play during planning? How do the states upstream of california feel about that aqueduct? Are they likely to want to repeat the process? Would other states, having seen the problems involved, be excited about joining the project? The idea of using the mississippi or the great lakes for Cali's water is nothing but a fever dream even if you discount the laughably absurd logistical problems that would exist.

If this discussion has moved on from "use the great lakes and the mississippi", which is just, again, an absurd solution, to "move the water from northern california to southern california" there's a chance it might happen. There's at least somewhat favorable terrain from northern to southern california, there'd be one less level of bureaucracy to deal with, and the political shitstorm wouldn't be a shitnado. Nevada and utah, you're SoL. You don't have an untapped watershed. Ditto arizona (the rio grande water rights are set by international treaty). If you're talking about taking water from oregon or further north, California is also SoL. California doesn't have the water rights to oregon's or washington's water. You'd have to get it through the senate, and I can't imagine any state wanting to set the precedent of allowing one state to steal another's water. Cali only has 2 senators.

Welp the Colorado River Compact is just over 100 years old. Which highlights the big overall issue. Water policy and treaties are incredibly out of date. They had unrealistic allotments and dispersals even when they were written.
So many of the drought issues can be solved with a pen instead of elaborate engineering takes. Current rights holders will have to take it in the shorts. But the current system treats them like landed aristocrats.

Also, the Eco Fascists are telling you who they are. Deploying nonsense plans in order to destroy the discourse on a subject. Like number 3 on Eco's Ur Fascism.

[Shadowferal]

Seems this about treating the symptoms of a disease.

[Rasulis]

Don't need to get it from the great lakes when you can go north instead.
Don't need pipelines when you can build aquaducts for much of the project.

i do agree with your points on stormwater and wastewater, started in with that as one of my first comments.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53224038

I have no particular objections to bringing water from somewhere else to CA. However, I don’t think there is any public appetite for that. Water/Sewer/Storm Water design & construction are 60 - 90% of our business so we keep close eyes on upcoming projects. Right now, there is not a hint that something like that may be brewing in the next 5 to 10 years.

What is big right now in San Diego is sewage reclamation. The Pure Water project will be generating 30 MGD of potable water by 2024, and 86 MGD by 2035. Currently the City use around 130 MGD. Which is around 25 MGD less than 2015.

Stormwater runoff capture effectiveness varies between regions. The LA and OC basins which are underlain by thick sequence of alluvium and deep groundwater are perfect for stormwater catch basins and bioinfiltration basins project. The City of LA had been increasing annual stormwater capture by around 20% each year.

San Diego not so much. Most of San Diego is underlain by Pleistocene deposits, meta-volcanic and granitic rocks which are highly impermeable. The areas with substantial alluvial deposits are limited to the western portion - Tijuana River Valley, Mission Valley, Sorrento Valley and the coastal region. The shallow groundwater depths (20 feet or less) in these areas provide minimal protection from surface contamination which complicate matters. So stormwater capture projects in San Diego have had mixed results.

San Diego is also in midst of replacing their old dams. Which will increase retention capacity also. For example, Lake Hodges Dam (over 100 years old) is considered unstable under seismic condition. So the City had been keeping it only at half capacity. The plan is to build a new roller-compacted concrete dam downstream of the current dam. Once the new dam is completed, the old one can be demolished and the reservoir utilized to full capacity.

A lot of incremental projects. No silver bullet. However, all those projects sum up to a big increase in the region’s water supply.

[Zan15]

I have no particular objections to bringing water from somewhere else to CA. However, I don’t think there is any public appetite for that. Water/Sewer/Storm Water design & construction are 60 - 90% of our business so we keep close eyes on upcoming projects. Right now, there is not a hint that something like that may be brewing in the next 5 to 10 years.

.

Agreed, it won't happen. Whole different generation approved all the work in NY and CA that resulted in major infrastructure work in the early and middle part of the 1900s. They knew investment in the future, even though the cost was great, would show huge returns.

People these days don't have that kind of vision. Can't even get gas tax increase after decades to pay for crumbling roads and bridges could you imagine paying for water infrastructure.

- - - Updated - - -

Can anyone tell me when the last interstate aqueduct was built? 115 years ago? Something like that? How did water rights come into play during planning? How do the states upstream of california feel about that aqueduct? Are they likely to want to repeat the process? Would other states, having seen the problems involved, be excited about joining the project? The idea of using the mississippi or the great lakes for Cali's water is nothing but a fever dream even if you discount the laughably absurd logistical problems that would exist.

If this discussion has moved on from "use the great lakes and the mississippi", which is just, again, an absurd solution, to "move the water from northern california to southern california" there's a chance it might happen. There's at least somewhat favorable terrain from northern to southern california, there'd be one less level of bureaucracy to deal with, and the political shitstorm wouldn't be a shitnado. Nevada and utah, you're SoL. You don't have an untapped watershed. Ditto arizona (the rio grande water rights are set by international treaty). If you're talking about taking water from oregon or further north, California is also SoL. California doesn't have the water rights to oregon's or washington's water. You'd have to get it through the senate, and I can't imagine any state wanting to set the precedent of allowing one state to steal another's water. Cali only has 2 senators.

LOL "stealing" excess water....

Its strange we don't have this problem with oil and gas extracted from one state and piped to another.

Technically the Senate wouldn't need to get involved since water rights are imbedded in states rights after a lot of SCOTUS fights its been upheld. CA would just need to make interstate agreements with the states to the north.
If they wanted to make a pact with Canada well then congress would need to get involved.

Going east to the Mississippi or northeast to the great lakes for CA is a waste when you can just go north.
Although the only logistical problem would be the same with any pipeline and we manage to have them running across the country.

You could build a system that pushes water systems west and southwards. So the great lakes/miss would provide water to neighboring states...those states provide their water to the south/west....those states provide their water to the south/west....etc etc. A whole cascading system instead of trying to bypass whole states with pipelines/aquaducts.

[Omega10]

I have no particular objections to bringing water from somewhere else to CA. However, I don’t think there is any public appetite for that. Water/Sewer/Storm Water design & construction are 60 - 90% of our business so we keep close eyes on upcoming projects. Right now, there is not a hint that something like that may be brewing in the next 5 to 10 years.

What is big right now in San Diego is sewage reclamation. The Pure Water project will be generating 30 MGD of potable water by 2024, and 86 MGD by 2035. Currently the City use around 130 MGD. Which is around 25 MGD less than 2015.

Stormwater runoff capture effectiveness varies between regions. The LA and OC basins which are underlain by thick sequence of alluvium and deep groundwater are perfect for stormwater catch basins and bioinfiltration basins project. The City of LA had been increasing annual stormwater capture by around 20% each year.

San Diego not so much. Most of San Diego is underlain by Pleistocene deposits, meta-volcanic and granitic rocks which are highly impermeable. The areas with substantial alluvial deposits are limited to the western portion - Tijuana River Valley, Mission Valley, Sorrento Valley and the coastal region. The shallow groundwater depths (20 feet or less) in these areas provide minimal protection from surface contamination which complicate matters. So stormwater capture projects in San Diego have had mixed results.

San Diego is also in midst of replacing their old dams. Which will increase retention capacity also. For example, Lake Hodges Dam (over 100 years old) is considered unstable under seismic condition. So the City had been keeping it only at half capacity. The plan is to build a new roller-compacted concrete dam downstream of the current dam. Once the new dam is completed, the old one can be demolished and the reservoir utilized to full capacity.

A lot of incremental projects. No silver bullet. However, all those projects sum up to a big increase in the region’s water supply.

This summarizes the whole issue.

A huge majority of the solutions and issues that will be faced moving forward are pretty boring technical engineering issues, each of which can only solve a part of the problem. There ARE limits to how many people we can get water to, but maximizing, or at least increasing, the amount of available water available is no longer in the easy apple close to the ground kind of solution, but instead is in the very very difficult apple at the top of the tree type of solution.

Thank you for this post.

[Rasulis]

We talked a lot about CA. However, the problem is not unique to CA.

In Fountain, Colorado, There’s Plenty Of Room For New Homes. But There Isn’t Enough Water

There are currently fewer than 9,000 taps, or connections, to Fountain’s water supply. Over the last year, Blankenship said developers have applied for nearly 30,000 new taps to the city’s water system.

Blankenship is telling developers, Fountain is tapped out.

“The bottom line is, we can't give you something that we don't have,” Blankenship said.

To support that many new taps, the city would need to buy additional rights to use more water. They would also need a place to store that water, and the city would need to treat it and find a way to get it to homes.

That’s getting harder to make happen in a state like Colorado, where most of the people live on the Front Range but most of the water is on the Western Slope.

“You have to bring the water from far away. And it keeps getting further and further. And so the further it goes, and the longer it goes, the more expensive it is,” Blankenship said.

There are currently fewer than 9,000 taps, or connections, to Fountain’s water supply. Over the last year, Blankenship said developers have applied for nearly 30,000 new taps to the city’s water system.

Blankenship is telling developers, Fountain is tapped out.

“The bottom line is, we can't give you something that we don't have,” Blankenship said.

To support that many new taps, the city would need to buy additional rights to use more water. They would also need a place to store that water, and the city would need to treat it and find a way to get it to homes.

That’s getting harder to make happen in a state like Colorado, where most of the people live on the Front Range but most of the water is on the Western Slope.

“You have to bring the water from far away. And it keeps getting further and further. And so the further it goes, and the longer it goes, the more expensive it is,” Blankenship said.

The same goes for NV, AZ, TX, WA, OR, UT, WY, MT, NM, etc.

[Ripster42]

LOL "stealing" excess water....

Its strange we don't have this problem with oil and gas extracted from one state and piped to another.

Technically the Senate wouldn't need to get involved since water rights are imbedded in states rights after a lot of SCOTUS fights its been upheld. CA would just need to make interstate agreements with the states to the north.
If they wanted to make a pact with Canada well then congress would need to get involved.

Going east to the Mississippi or northeast to the great lakes for CA is a waste when you can just go north.
Although the only logistical problem would be the same with any pipeline and we manage to have them running across the country.

You could build a system that pushes water systems west and southwards. So the great lakes/miss would provide water to neighboring states...those states provide their water to the south/west....those states provide their water to the south/west....etc etc. A whole cascading system instead of trying to bypass whole states with pipelines/aquaducts.

They don't have the rights to that water, and good luck convincing a state to give up their water. Imagine the shit storm the farmers in california would put up if you took away some of their water rights, and multiply that by the farmers and landholders in every state you're crossing. So yes, stealing. No state is going to give up their water rights to cali given the pain in the ass CA has been about water rights or their own struggles with water access. OR and WA aren't going to make an agreement with CA. Why would they? Why would any state agree to this? Why? What could possibly be the motivation? "Sure there's a giant rain shadow in the eastern portion of our state that could use the water if we're going spend billions upon billions of dollars to destroy our environment, but CA deserves it more!" or "Let's piss off all our constituents so CA can continue to farm in the middle of a desert!" You're dreaming. This is the type of bullshit that would have to be imposed upon states, not something states would willingly enter into. That's why the US senate would have to be involved.

Just a quick fact check for you: Water costs 1/8th of a cent per gallon in the US. Crude oil is around 1200x more expensive (currently ~$60/bbl or ~$1.50/g). Your logistics problem better include being 1200x cheaper than current pipelines to get the same cost benefit ratio. The political problems surrounding pipeline construction are going to be as bad as other pipeline projects (worse really, as every state you cross is going to be adamantly opposed). You're going to have the same environmental protests. You're going to have additional groups protesting because of who you're giving it to (redneck ranchers aren't exactly known to be soft on the 'dirty california hippie liberal elite preaching about the environment while ruining both theirs and ours'). Both sides of the aisle in every state it'd cross would be united against the project. You're going to have the same eminent domain problems. You're going to need a pipeline system that moves more water than the entire US uses in gasoline in an entire year to cover CA's "shortage" (aka, the fake shortage caused by farming in a desert with discount water). The reason I bring up cost in response to your "the logistical problem would be the same with any pipepline" nonsense, is that there are areas closer to the mississippi and great lakes that are also short on water that don't build those irrigation projects already. The dry high plains have giant cattle ranches, not because it brings in more money than crop farming + industrial cattle operations (or any high water use application) would, but because it uses less water. Moving water twice as far, over two mountain ranges, is even more unlikely.

I get it. You don't like to admit you're wrong. You're wrong. You're pretending that people are going to act deliberately against their own self interest so that CA can continue farming in a desert, competing against the very states you'd be trying to strike deals with for their water, which CA has zero claim to. You're proposing an infrastructure project bigger than any current pipeline, to move something that costs 1/1200th what is being moved by current pipelines. Desalinization plants are expensive (about 2x as expensive per gallon of water IIRC). They're also a solution that remains within the bounds dictated by politics and economics.

edit: aisle, not isle.

[Zan15]

They don't have the rights to that water, and good luck convincing a state to give up their water. Imagine the shit storm the farmers in california would put up if you took away some of their water rights, and multiply that by the farmers and landholders in every state you're crossing. So yes, stealing. No state is going to give up their water rights to cali given the pain in the ass CA has been about water rights or their own struggles with water access. OR and WA aren't going to make an agreement with CA. Why would they? Why would any state agree to this? Why? What could possibly be the motivation? "Sure there's a giant rain shadow in the eastern portion of our state that could use the water if we're going spend billions upon billions of dollars to destroy our environment, but CA deserves it more!" or "Let's piss off all our constituents so CA can continue to farm in the middle of a desert!" You're dreaming. This is the type of bullshit that would have to be imposed upon states, not something states would willingly enter into. That's why the US senate would have to be involved.

Excess water.
Not giving up the water.
Not taking away their water rights.
Charging for the water not used.
Right to manage how much.
Won't destroy the environment, NY proved this already.

Again US senate can't override states rights and good luck changing the constitution to allow that.

Yah why support a state that makes up what 12% of the national GDP and one of the biggest grower of food for our country. Why bother right!!!

Just a quick fact check for you: Water costs 1/8th of a cent per gallon in the US. Crude oil is around 1200x more expensive (currently ~$60/bbl or ~$1.50/g). Your logistics problem better include being 1200x cheaper than current pipelines to get the same cost benefit ratio. The political problems surrounding pipeline construction are going to be as bad as other pipeline projects (worse really, as every state you cross is going to be adamantly opposed). You're going to have the same environmental protests. You're going to have additional groups protesting because of who you're giving it to (redneck ranchers aren't exactly known to be soft on the 'dirty california hippie liberal elite preaching about the environment while ruining both theirs and ours'). Both sides of the aisle in every state it'd cross would be united against the project. You're going to have the same eminent domain problems. You're going to need a pipeline system that moves more water than the entire US uses in gasoline in an entire year to cover CA's "shortage" (aka, the fake shortage caused by farming in a desert with discount water). The reason I bring up cost in response to your "the logistical problem would be the same with any pipepline" nonsense, is that there are areas closer to the mississippi and great lakes that are also short on water that don't build those irrigation projects already. The dry high plains have giant cattle ranches, not because it brings in more money than crop farming + industrial cattle operations (or any high water use application) would, but because it uses less water. Moving water twice as far, over two mountain ranges, is even more unlikely.

.

No one said it would be cheap or easy. Most water transportation projects are a net gain in the amount of electricity generated vs used thanks to gravity. Up the mountain down the mountain, wheee?


You also don't need a full system of pipelines when aqueducts can be built.

You are in fact not going to have the same level of environmental protest since water spills are no where near the problem of just a leaking oil pipeline. Not to mention if done right with aqueducts and systems like CA/NY already have it can be beneficial to the environment in many locations


Crude oil prices are not reflective of just the cost of transportation and construction. Most of that goes into exploration and profit. You don't need to explore for water and you don't need to pay dividends or do a hundred billion in stock buy backs a year.

I get it. You don't like to admit you're wrong. You're wrong. You're pretending that people are going to act deliberately against their own self interest so that CA can continue farming in a desert, competing against the very states you'd be trying to strike deals with for their water, which CA has zero claim to. You're proposing an infrastructure project bigger than any current pipeline, to move something that costs 1/1200th what is being moved by current pipelines. Desalinization plants are expensive (about 2x as expensive per gallon of water IIRC). They're also a solution that remains within the bounds dictated by politics and economics.

edit: aisle, not isle.

No one said i was right. Its called a discussion. Never claimed my way was the best way, the only way or even necessarily the right thing to do.
I also agreed you needed more desalinization plants, more reclamation, more recycling and treatment of current water run off and waste, etc etc etc.

You need to look beyond thinking its just going to benefit CA. Do you realize what CA contributes to this country economically and from a food production standpoint? @Rasulis has already pointed this out time and time again.

Its against your own self interest to not help invest in CA and other places outside of your little city, town, state.

You're proposing an infrastructure project bigger than any current pipeline, to move something that costs 1/1200th what is being moved by current pipelines. Desalinization plants are expensive (about 2x as expensive per gallon of water IIRC). They're also a solution that remains within the bounds dictated by politics and economics.

edit: aisle, not isle.

No i am proposing more than just "pipelines".
Oh no its bigger than anything done before, we should not do it then.
Guess that panama canal should have been scrapped. That NYC water tunnel #3 should not have been built. etc etc.
What's wrong with finally planning for the next 100 years by building out a system that meets the needs instead of constantly being in catch up mode?
Thank god the previous generations of New Yorkers did not limit themselves in this way.

Sounds a hell of a lot more about CA hate then anything else.

BTW based on what consumers pay for a bottle of water, I am still getting gas cheaper per gallon.

[Ripster42]

No one said it would be cheap or easy. Most water transportation projects are a net gain in the amount of electricity generated vs used thanks to gravity. Up the mountain down the mountain, wheee?

Are you for real? If this is the flippant bullshit you've got, it's embarrassing. This is basically the pigeon shitting on the board. The reason they tend to generate energy is because the water is collected with a lot of potential energy... it's collected much higher than the destination. The waters in the mississippi and great lakes are already in their basins. Lake michigan is less than 600' above sea level. A fraction of the elevation rate change that exists with the projects you're talking about. You're trying to talk like NY is some beacon, when it's not a comparison. Every next mile of a system is more difficult and adds to the cost. This is 10^13 gallons thousands of miles uphill most of the way. There's nothing truly comparable in the world, let alone some 90 mi stretch transporting much less water. The colorado river aqueduct is a better example, and that's got 10x the elevation rate change that exists from lake michigan to LA. I don't think you're quite comprehending the problem that exists there. One of the largest engineering projects in the US is about a tenth of the size of the one you're suggesting which is ten times more difficult per mile. An infrastructure program maybe best compared with the US highway system, all to benefit one region of one state at the expense of others. Increase accordingly, if you're trying to help more than just southern CA avoid having to pay twice as much for water as they are now because they've been pretending like they don't live in a desert. I'll be as flippant as you: ooh nooo... not $0.006 per gallon.

And no, there's no chance states that compete with CA for farming would want to give CA water to make the competition for their own goods worse when they're also dying for water. And that's all the states from the midwest to there. The federal gov't already pays people not to farm. You're acting like farmers in the midwest give a shit about farmers in CA. They don't. The first thing a farmer in KS would say when this would be proposed is, "Why didn't you suggest this when I needed more water?" Oklahoma would laugh in the language of dust. Everywhere west of the mississippi is under water pressure. It's not just CA. It's like you've never heard of the arguments states get into with each other about river drawing allotments (aside from your myopic vision of the ones CA is involved in). CA isn't the center of people's lives who don't live there. They don't give a shit if people or products from CA are successful, especially when that occurs with a cost to them. The people in the midwest would cheer as you fell into the ocean in the delusional belief that it's california that's keeping their opportunities limited instead of the widespread ignorance. Doubly so if all your farms were salted instead, with the knowledge that some of their opportunities actually would improve without as much competition for their goods.

Deal with reality. Realize scale is a problem all its own. Realize people from other states are in competition with products from california. That CA is a completely different state than any of the other states you'd be stealing water from, unlike the NY example you keep bringing up. Realize the panama canal was a backyard sandbox compared to what you're proposing. Realize that a gallon of water is $0.003 out of the tap in CA (if the $1k per foot-acre stat from 2017 I saw was still correct, vastly higher than the $70 a foot-acre your farmers are paying, which is what I mean about discount water). Your glib bullshit about bottled water is shameful. This whole idea of a giant aqueduct is delusional.

[Kellhound]

Can anyone tell me when the last interstate aqueduct was built? 115 years ago? Something like that? How did water rights come into play during planning? How do the states upstream of california feel about that aqueduct? Are they likely to want to repeat the process? Would other states, having seen the problems involved, be excited about joining the project? The idea of using the mississippi or the great lakes for Cali's water is nothing but a fever dream even if you discount the laughably absurd logistical problems that would exist.

If this discussion has moved on from "use the great lakes and the mississippi", which is just, again, an absurd solution, to "move the water from northern california to southern california" there's a chance it might happen. There's at least somewhat favorable terrain from northern to southern california, there'd be one less level of bureaucracy to deal with, and the political shitstorm wouldn't be a shitnado. Nevada and utah, you're SoL. You don't have an untapped watershed. Ditto arizona (the rio grande water rights are set by international treaty). If you're talking about taking water from oregon or further north, California is also SoL. California doesn't have the water rights to oregon's or washington's water. You'd have to get it through the senate, and I can't imagine any state wanting to set the precedent of allowing one state to steal another's water. Cali only has 2 senators.

If California agreed to pay for the water by annexing the Willamette Valley and the SeaTac area, I am sure the rest of Oregon and Washington would agree to let them tap the Columbia.

- - - Updated - - -

We talked a lot about CA. However, the problem is not unique to CA.

In Fountain, Colorado, There’s Plenty Of Room For New Homes. But There Isn’t Enough Water



The same goes for NV, AZ, TX, WA, OR, UT, WY, MT, NM, etc.

OR and WA have plenty of water. CO would have plenty if it didn't have to send so much to CA.
FYI: Denver has long gotten its water from the West Slope.

[Rasulis]

This summarizes the whole issue.

A huge majority of the solutions and issues that will be faced moving forward are pretty boring technical engineering issues, each of which can only solve a part of the problem. There ARE limits to how many people we can get water to, but maximizing, or at least increasing, the amount of available water available is no longer in the easy apple close to the ground kind of solution, but instead is in the very very difficult apple at the top of the tree type of solution.

Thank you for this post.

I spent the last 30 years working on water projects in Southern California. When you looked at each individual project, the first impression was “that won't even put a dent.” Which may be true. However, when you put all those projects together, the impact is quite amazing.

It is a fact of life that Northern California received more rain than Southern California. Yet under the current drought, none of the largest counties in Southern California (LA, OC and SD) have asked their residents to cut water usage. Meanwhile, Mendocino County which gets a bountiful 38 inches of rain in an average year and sits near the headwaters of the Russian River, has been devastated by this year’s drought. Each resident has been told to use no more than 55 gallons per day. Just enough to fill a bathtub and flush a toilet six times.

The problem with Mendocino County? They do received lots and lots of water. Unfortunately, they did not store lots and lots of water.

How about LA, OC and SD? Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the primary water whole seller in Southern California, doubled their reservoir capacity with the completion of Diamond Valley Reservoir in 2000. Since 1980, between stowing water in reservoirs and pouring it into aquifers MWD storage has increased 13 fold.

Los Angeles County pioneered recycled water, building the nation’s first reclamation plant in 1962 to treat sewage and use it to replenish its aquifers. Orange County has been a world leader in recycling water, purifying its own sewage and capturing the Inland Empire’s sewage to feed its groundwater.

San Diego has built up its resilience since the last drought. For decades it was almost totally reliant on Metropolitan Water District’s imported water. But since the 1990s, the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) has added desalinated and recycled water, built one dam (Olivenhain) and raised another (Lake Hodges), pumped groundwater and cut a deal to get Colorado River water from Imperial County.

City of San Diego is currently working on the Pure Water project which will generate 30 mgd of potable water by 2024, and 86 mgd by 2035. It is currently working to replace the 100-year plus Lake Hodges Dam which will double the reservoir capacity.

The key to LA/OC/SD metro areas drought resiliency can be summed up in one word “storage.” The region currently has enough water to survive several dry years in a row before mandatory reductions will be required. How many years to be exact? Despite continued hot and dry conditions in California, the San Diego region is protected from drought impacts this summer and through 2045, the San Diego County Water Authority announced Monday. How long does it take to replenish those storage facilities after the previous prolonged 5-year drought? Two above average rainy seasons (2017 and 2018).

The only county in Northern California with comparable storage capacity is SF which draws about 85% of its water from Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy.

No single solution. Instead we have a lot of incremental improvements over decades.

[DarkTZeratul]

If California agreed to pay for the water by annexing the Willamette Valley and the SeaTac area, I am sure the rest of Oregon and Washington would agree to let them tap the Columbia.

Oh yes, I'm sure they would be more than happy to give California both their money and their major economic centers.

[Kellhound]

I spent the last 30 years working on water projects in Southern California. When you looked at each individual project, the first impression was “that won't even put a dent.” Which may be true. However, when you put all those projects together, the impact is quite amazing.

It is a fact of life that Northern California received more rain than Southern California. Yet under the current drought, none of the largest counties in Southern California (LA, OC and SD) have asked their residents to cut water usage. Meanwhile, Mendocino County which gets a bountiful 38 inches of rain in an average year and sits near the headwaters of the Russian River, has been devastated by this year’s drought. Each resident has been told to use no more than 55 gallons per day. Just enough to fill a bathtub and flush a toilet six times.

The problem with Mendocino County? They do received lots and lots of water. Unfortunately, they did not store lots and lots of water.

How about LA, OC and SD? Metropolitan Water District (MWD), the primary water whole seller in Southern California, doubled their reservoir capacity with the completion of Diamond Valley Reservoir in 2000. Since 1980, between stowing water in reservoirs and pouring it into aquifers MWD storage has increased 13 fold.

Los Angeles County pioneered recycled water, building the nation’s first reclamation plant in 1962 to treat sewage and use it to replenish its aquifers. Orange County has been a world leader in recycling water, purifying its own sewage and capturing the Inland Empire’s sewage to feed its groundwater.

San Diego has built up its resilience since the last drought. For decades it was almost totally reliant on Metropolitan Water District’s imported water. But since the 1990s, the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) has added desalinated and recycled water, built one dam (Olivenhain) and raised another (Lake Hodges), pumped groundwater and cut a deal to get Colorado River water from Imperial County.

City of San Diego is currently working on the Pure Water project which will generate 30 mgd of potable water by 2024, and 86 mgd by 2035. It is currently working to replace the 100-year plus Lake Hodges Dam which will double the reservoir capacity.

The key to LA/OC/SD metro areas drought resiliency can be summed up in one word “storage.” The region currently has enough water to survive several dry years in a row before mandatory reductions will be required. How many years to be exact? Despite continued hot and dry conditions in California, the San Diego region is protected from drought impacts this summer and through 2045, the San Diego County Water Authority announced Monday. How long does it take to replenish those storage facilities after the previous prolonged 5-year drought? Two above average rainy seasons (2017 and 2018).

The only county in Northern California with comparable storage capacity is SF which draws about 85% of its water from Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy.

No single solution. Instead we have a lot of incremental improvements over decades.

Southern California's water supply can be summed up in two words: Colorado River.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yes, I'm sure they would be more than happy to give California both their money and their major economic centers.

Yes, yes they would, because they would also be giving California most of their liberals.

[Zan15]

Are you for real? If this is the flippant bullshit you've got, it's embarrassing. This is basically the pigeon shitting on the board. The reason they tend to generate energy is because the water is collected with a lot of potential energy... it's collected much higher than the destination. The waters in the mississippi and great lakes are already in their basins. Lake michigan is less than 600' above sea level. A fraction of the elevation rate change that exists with the projects you're talking about. You're trying to talk like NY is some beacon, when it's not a comparison. Every next mile of a system is more difficult and adds to the cost. This is 10^13 gallons thousands of miles uphill most of the way. There's nothing truly comparable in the world, let alone some 90 mi stretch transporting much less water. The colorado river aqueduct is a better example, and that's got 10x the elevation rate change that exists from lake michigan to LA. I don't think you're quite comprehending the problem that exists there. One of the largest engineering projects in the US is about a tenth of the size of the one you're suggesting which is ten times more difficult per mile. An infrastructure program maybe best compared with the US highway system, all to benefit one region of one state at the expense of others. Increase accordingly, if you're trying to help more than just southern CA avoid having to pay twice as much for water as they are now because they've been pretending like they don't live in a desert. I'll be as flippant as you: ooh nooo... not $0.006 per gallon.

I am not the one proposing to go from the great lakes to CA. I said you can get the water from the north. You can also progress the water in a series of sections from east to west. Doing it all in one shot and bypassing states is a rediclous waste.

Is also not flippant bullshit since they managed to do it in CA and NY so its very possible to go north with this project and suceede. Yes you would have to pump much higher, but it would still not change the ability to generate electricity on the way back down that would result in the project powering itself with excess energy left over.


Oh noooo its too big to do we must only do small things!

We already built a 444 mile long aquaduct there is no reason why we can't build a series of these to the north to newly created watersheds and reservoirs.

And no, there's no chance states that compete with CA for farming would want to give CA water to make the competition for their own goods worse when they're also dying for water. And that's all the states from the midwest to there. The federal gov't already pays people not to farm. You're acting like farmers in the midwest give a shit about farmers in CA. They don't. The first thing a farmer in KS would say when this would be proposed is, "Why didn't you suggest this when I needed more water?" Oklahoma would laugh in the language of dust. Everywhere west of the mississippi is under water pressure. It's not just CA. It's like you've never heard of the arguments states get into with each other about river drawing allotments (aside from your myopic vision of the ones CA is involved in). CA isn't the center of people's lives who don't live there. They don't give a shit if people or products from CA are successful, especially when that occurs with a cost to them. The people in the midwest would cheer as you fell into the ocean in the delusional belief that it's california that's keeping their opportunities limited instead of the widespread ignorance. Doubly so if all your farms were salted instead, with the knowledge that some of their opportunities actually would improve without as much competition for their goods.

Strange Texas gives its oil to states it competes with.....that uses its oil....WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT!!!! They are in competition for their own goods!! Texas businesses don't give a shit about businesses from other states!!!!

Why are all these other states exporting their natural resources?? DID YOU SEE LUMBER PRICES, why are they sending lumber to other states they compete with!!!

Deal with reality. Realize scale is a problem all its own. Realize people from other states are in competition with products from california. That CA is a completely different state than any of the other states you'd be stealing water from, unlike the NY example you keep bringing up. Realize the panama canal was a backyard sandbox compared to what you're proposing. Realize that a gallon of water is $0.003 out of the tap in CA (if the $1k per foot-acre stat from 2017 I saw was still correct, vastly higher than the $70 a foot-acre your farmers are paying, which is what I mean about discount water). Your glib bullshit about bottled water is shameful. This whole idea of a giant aqueduct is delusional

Back to "stealing" water huh?

Bottled water already proved how much people are willing to pay for water.

[Rasulis]

Southern California's water supply can be summed up in two words: Colorado River.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, yes they would, because they would also be giving California most of their liberals.

Which in 2021 has been reduced by half from the 2020 allocation.