A solution to California's Water Crisis AND lack of jobs!

[fredinno]

California's water crisis has no solution.

The problem isn't "not enough water". The problem is "too many people".

Then there is a solution. You know what it is.

[smjjames]

It sort of looks like they are attempting to divert the headwaters of the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers and push the water up over the Rockies., the plains and midwest states wouldn't be happy with that.

The GRAND concept also looks like it's trying to drain the Sierra Madre mountains in Mexico, what's up with that.

[problemecium]

I'm with fredinno on this one.

On one hand, "we like our water" is unreasonable. Canada has multiple orders of magnitude more water than its population needs. Most of it is frozen, but that's easy to address. It's like saying "As an American, I'm against donating to poor African countries because we like our money."

But on the other, "Let's take our already rapidly shrinking ice caps and start mining ice out of them" sounds like an even worse plan. Even without that part, I worry that redistributing massive quantities of water artificially will make the existing climate change problem even worse.

My suggestion? If you live in a desert and there's not enough water, try NOT LIVING IN A DESERT. ;P

[SciMan]

In my mind, the problem isn't "not enough water" or "too many people", its "inefficient use of the current amount of water" and "too high population density".

More modern/efficient farming technologies would probably help out a LOT.

Something like putting crops in simple (but huge) greenhouses would greatly reduce water losses. So would running porous pipes under the crops to eliminate the need to spray water on them, instead supplying the water directly to the roots.

Another huge game-changer would be "vertical farming", which uses multi-floor greenhouses with sunlight brought in by arrays of mirrors. This would combine the advantages of greenhousing and direct irrigation, as well as require much less pesticide use (bugs have a hard time getting in). Additionally, it would allow crops to be grown year-round in any climate because the sun collectors for the mirror arrays can be augmented with artificial light sources, and the climate inside can be controlled for optimum temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels.

These technologies are much better at turning dirt, water, seeds, and CO2 into food than traditional farming, but they're not used because they're so expensive to set up.

They use water MUCH more efficiently, which may by itself be enough to mean that droughts are no longer a problem.

Even if it's a desert outside one of these indoor farm buildings, it can have the same climate as a tropical rainforest inside.

You know, the whole area of advanced farming technology is something that is needed for colonizing another planet, or space.

And the droughts could be one of the things that eventually pushes the human race into space.

As for population density, I bet modern technology can build a city right into the side of a mountain. And that includes the required airport, road, and power connections.

Obviously it's going to be extremely expensive to build a city on the side of a mountain, but building ANY city is expensive if you sum up all the costs at once.

It's a lot of work, and it would take a long time as well. Both of these things are great for economic stability, because it creates jobs that last for a long time.

We're far from running out of space on Earth for people to live. There is no such thing as an unsolvable problem so long as it doesn't involve breaking the laws of physics.

[smjjames]

In my mind, the problem isn't "not enough water" or "too many people", its "inefficient use of the current amount of water" and "too high population density".

More modern/efficient farming technologies would probably help out a LOT.

Something like putting crops in simple (but huge) greenhouses would greatly reduce water losses. So would running porous pipes under the crops to eliminate the need to spray water on them, instead supplying the water directly to the roots.

Another huge game-changer would be "vertical farming", which uses multi-floor greenhouses with sunlight brought in by arrays of mirrors. This would combine the advantages of greenhousing and direct irrigation, as well as require much less pesticide use (bugs have a hard time getting in). Additionally, it would allow crops to be grown year-round in any climate because the sun collectors for the mirror arrays can be augmented with artificial light sources, and the climate inside can be controlled for optimum temperature, humidity, and CO2 levels.

These technologies are much better at turning dirt, water, seeds, and CO2 into food than traditional farming, but they're not used because they're so expensive to set up.

They use water MUCH more efficiently, which may by itself be enough to mean that droughts are no longer a problem.

Even if it's a desert outside one of these indoor farm buildings, it can have the same climate as a tropical rainforest inside.

You know, the whole area of advanced farming technology is something that is needed for colonizing another planet, or space.

And the droughts could be one of the things that eventually pushes the human race into space.

As for population density, I bet modern technology can build a city right into the side of a mountain. And that includes the required airport, road, and power connections.

Obviously it's going to be extremely expensive to build a city on the side of a mountain, but building ANY city is expensive if you sum up all the costs at once.

It's a lot of work, and it would take a long time as well. Both of these things are great for economic stability, because it creates jobs that last for a long time.

We're far from running out of space on Earth for people to live. There is no such thing as an unsolvable problem so long as it doesn't involve breaking the laws of physics.

By 'into', do you mean on a mountain? Because building on one and digging into one to make caverns are two different things.

You don't need modern technology to build a city on the side of a mountain, the Incas did it. Yes it helps considerably with supporting larger populations, but it's not a requirement.

[Mazon Del]

For the various people that earlier were stating that it would be cheaper, in terms of electricity, to desalinate the oceans than some crazy scheme like OPs. One thing to consider is that the cost of desalination is not actually the largest economic/electrical problem we face trying to shift to such a setup. Pumping the water UPHILL and to the various other locals would bring about the bulk of the setup/run costs. Part of this is because most of our water infrastructure is designed with a mind towards water flowing down hill, to make transportation costs as efficient as possible. Yes there are various pumping stations and such along the way but they are not doing the lions share of the work in moving the water around (at least when it comes to the main lines. Distribution nodes that end up servicing towns/cities may differ). In fact, many of the water transport systems are not designed to support reverse-direction flows and would need to be overhauled. Generally speaking that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the pipe, so much as the equipment on the line (switch houses and distribution nodes, etc). Every time CA has a drought and such, people propose the desalination plants, and while they would certainly help the coastal areas (and allow you to reduce the use from the up-hill areas) they are currently not considered an economical solution, partly because a single rainy year can suddenly drop the profits of such a system deep deep into the red.

[smjjames]

For the various people that earlier were stating that it would be cheaper, in terms of electricity, to desalinate the oceans than some crazy scheme like OPs. One thing to consider is that the cost of desalination is not actually the largest economic/electrical problem we face trying to shift to such a setup. Pumping the water UPHILL and to the various other locals would bring about the bulk of the setup/run costs. Part of this is because most of our water infrastructure is designed with a mind towards water flowing down hill, to make transportation costs as efficient as possible. Yes there are various pumping stations and such along the way but they are not doing the lions share of the work in moving the water around (at least when it comes to the main lines. Distribution nodes that end up servicing towns/cities may differ). In fact, many of the water transport systems are not designed to support reverse-direction flows and would need to be overhauled. Generally speaking that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the pipe, so much as the equipment on the line (switch houses and distribution nodes, etc). Every time CA has a drought and such, people propose the desalination plants, and while they would certainly help the coastal areas (and allow you to reduce the use from the up-hill areas) they are currently not considered an economical solution, partly because a single rainy year can suddenly drop the profits of such a system deep deep into the red.

So just use the desalination plants only as needed? Unless the 'deep into the red' also includes the maintainence costs?

[vger]

Whatever happened to that experimental project that was intended to revolutionize rainmaking? My search fu is terrible and I can't find anything about it now. There was a tower in the desert that more or less functioned to condense the atmosphere and cause rain to fall, and based on reports at the time, the thing seemed to be working and rainfall was more frequent.

Also: http://www.geek.com/news/ethiopia-is-getting-a-real-life-moisture-farm-1590682/

Seriously, bringing a canal to keep California green? Comeon, we've gotta be better than this by now. And California already hoards everything already. There has to be SOMETHING good that other places get to have more of. Greedy Hollywood pool party peeps.

Edited October 27, 2015 by vger

[Alias72]

I love how the sovereignty of Canada is being sidelined for a discussion of internal american politics. I expect you to do that with Latin american countries, not your biggest trading partner.

As for Canada's stance on this, we like our environment, an environment built around thousands of small freshwater lakes. If Americans want to live in a desert then they can live with the consequences. If you wish to buy or water we will sell you what we think is fair. If that means that your quality of life drops because we "charge to much" then that is your problem.

As for charity, that argument is bull. You don't hand over half your paycheck to third world countries to improve their quality of life. You give what you want. That is always less then what would be necessary to make things fair. people still starve to death while our two nations burn wheat in the field to keep prices up. The United States of America subsidizes corn production despite what that has done to Latin american farmers. We do not accept a decreased standard of living to achieve what is "fair" and the comment--

On one hand, "we like our water" is unreasonable. Canada has multiple orders of magnitude more water than its population needs. Most of it is frozen, but that's easy to address. It's like saying "As an American, I'm against donating to poor African countries because we like our money."

is a biased point. We like our water IS reasonable because its OUR water. You see something that you feel you need. You don't own it, so your desire is to take it. That makes you a thief at best and, given that we won't let you plow over half of Canada for a canal, war criminals (murderers) at worst. The real question should be. How many american lives would you be willing to sacrifice in a war to take that water?

Of course all of this is hypothetical. No one with half a brain is seriously considering this, or a similar project. But I want to point out that it is unfair to treat Canada's water as a tool for Americans to make use of. especially given that no one hear is considering Canada's stance on the issue.

[AeroArchonite_]

As a fellow Californian, I say we cut off all the water to the Beverly Hills region and anyone who's using more than twice the limit. If they have THAT big of a lawn/pool, they can pay having to shower in bottled water.

Kerbal style.

[FleshJeb]

I really want to use this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare

To blow a 100-mile channel from the Sea of Cortez to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

Where it could be desalinated by these: http://clui.org/ludb/site/salton-sea-geothermal-plants

via this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_desalination

OK, OK, we don't really need Operation Plowshare for this, but it IS very Kerbal.

[fredinno]

As a fellow Californian, I say we cut off all the water to the Beverly Hills region and anyone who's using more than twice the limit. If they have THAT big of a lawn/pool, they can pay having to shower in bottled water.

Kerbal style.

Good luck.

- - - Updated - - -

I love how the sovereignty of Canada is being sidelined for a discussion of internal american politics. I expect you to do that with Latin american countries, not your biggest trading partner.

As for Canada's stance on this, we like our environment, an environment built around thousands of small freshwater lakes. If Americans want to live in a desert then they can live with the consequences. If you wish to buy or water we will sell you what we think is fair. If that means that your quality of life drops because we "charge to much" then that is your problem.

As for charity, that argument is bull. You don't hand over half your paycheck to third world countries to improve their quality of life. You give what you want. That is always less then what would be necessary to make things fair. people still starve to death while our two nations burn wheat in the field to keep prices up. The United States of America subsidizes corn production despite what that has done to Latin american farmers. We do not accept a decreased standard of living to achieve what is "fair" and the comment--

On one hand, "we like our water" is unreasonable. Canada has multiple orders of magnitude more water than its population needs. Most of it is frozen, but that's easy to address. It's like saying "As an American, I'm against donating to poor African countries because we like our money."

is a biased point. We like our water IS reasonable because its OUR water. You see something that you feel you need. You don't own it, so your desire is to take it. That makes you a thief at best and, given that we won't let you plow over half of Canada for a canal, war criminals (murderers) at worst. The real question should be. How many american lives would you be willing to sacrifice in a war to take that water?

Of course all of this is hypothetical. No one with half a brain is seriously considering this, or a similar project. But I want to point out that it is unfair to treat Canada's water as a tool for Americans to make use of. especially given that no one hear is considering Canada's stance on the issue.

The proposals also got a substantial portion of the water from Alaska.

[Kerbart]

This is why the Hoover dam was built. Of course we then started to use so much water that Lake Mead couldn't be filled anymore during the wet season, and with a drought coming along we are where we are.

I'm sure, if this ill-advised plan would be executed we'd end up the same way; an initial surplus of water that we get accustomed of, dependend on, and only more trouble if, after years of dependency and over-use, we hit a dry spell.

[GoSlash27]

California has plenty of water, they're just not building dams and reservoirs to hold it because 1) They already spent the money allocated for them on public employee pension funds and 2) Every time they try, it gets shut down by environmental lawsuits.

So instead of controlling the water (which has been the basis of civilization all the way back to ancient Sumeria) they have flooding and mudslides in the spring and drought/ wildfires in the summer.

If they can't build dams and reservoirs, how are they supposed to build a giant canal all the way to Canada?

Best,

-Slashy

[GoSlash27]

Slashy, I respect your skill at KSP, so I won't just post a facepalm pic here.

"Controlling" water with damming is what destroyed the Colorado river system in the first place. We don't seem to have learned much about it since ancient Sumeria, other than how to do it on a bigger scale. Monstrous amounts of water are lost to evaporation and waste due to our clumsy attempts to move rivers, wiping out native vegetation and habitats. The only real benefit of this has been the power generation for desert cities that should be run on solar anyway.

You simply cannot have a human society without a reliable water supply. That's a fact of life. Without that you're reduced to roving bands of hunter- gatherers.

California has grown their population and thus agriculture and water usage, but they haven't increased their water supply to match it. They could have, but chose not to.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not gonna argue about it 'cuz it's just assumptions on your part that don't apply to me. I'm just really glad I don't live there.

Best,

-Slashy

[justidutch]

I may have a solution to the lack of water in California:

Let's trigger the big one. Let's explode the San Andreas fault, then California will slip into the ocean. Problem solved.

[Slam_Jones]

I may have a solution to the lack of water in California:

Let's trigger the big one. Let's explode the San Andreas fault, then California will slip into the ocean. Problem solved.

I, too, enjoy ideas that involve billions of dollars of damage and loss of untold lives. Always cracks me up.

[fredinno]

So then why isn't every river supplying water to every town in the world dammed? One has nothing to do with the other.

Because not every town needs dams to have a reliable supply of water.

- - - Updated - - -

You simply cannot have a human society without a reliable water supply. That's a fact of life. Without that you're reduced to roving bands of hunter- gatherers.

California has grown their population and thus agriculture and water usage, but they haven't increased their water supply to match it. They could have, but chose not to.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not gonna argue about it 'cuz it's just assumptions on your part that don't apply to me. I'm just really glad I don't live there.

Best,

-Slashy

Fun fact: California has been consistently incresing its water storage capacity for a while now. The problem is lack of water, transportation, and mismanagement.

[Mazon Del]

So just use the desalination plants only as needed? Unless the 'deep into the red' also includes the maintainence costs?

The problem tends to be that the periods of when these plants are not needed is measured in years. Keeping them ready to go whenever it looks like a drought upon you is hideously expensive. Only somewhat less expensive is reactivating a mothballed plant. But it is such an expensive task that in the few desalination plants that exist, every time a drought shows up they basically say "Well...it's the first year, it will probably break....its the second year, how likely is it to get a third? ....It's year 6, surely it's about to end by now, no reason to bring the plant online now." And usually once they finally get their act together and start up, within a year or so the drought does end and they grumble about how they only got such a short run of use out of it, and if only they'd just waited longer they wouldn't have wasted the money.

And during times when they are not needed, because of decent rainfall and such, they are just flat out not economical to operate when compared with normal systems for recycling and reclaiming used water from upstream.

[Vanamonde]

Okay, when talk has turned to clashes of national political policies and blowing up whole states full of people, it's time to move on to other discussions.