Drought in CA

I'm not sure what the rest of the country can do.  According to the Interwebs, California agriculture uses 34 million acre-feet per year.  If the other 49 states donated 10 million AF (enough to really help), that equals over 3 trillion gallons, or 93 million railroad tank cars (35,000 gal each).  Spread over a year, that's 255,000 cars per day, or 1,700 150-car trains per day.
 
Anything less and you may as well send them a few bottles of Perrier....
 
its not economic to move water on such a scale.

like i said, its cheaper to desalinate than it is to build some galatic scale inter state waterline.

70% of the us ag is NOT in california last i checked... California just makes the most money from Ag.

they grow fancy stuff like dates and nuts in california.

you ever buy pistachios? they cost a shit load.
 
most of the wine in the US is grown in CA.  I think people in other states will notice that.
 
 
I mean, we grow a handful of it here in Virginia but nothing compared to the viticultural juggernaut that is California and Napa valley. 
 
scrufy said:
around here (So Cal) it's a fairly big deal right now.

oh and as to the political end -
I've read that we haven't done a single additional aqueduct or pipeline for water since late 1960's - early 1970's but we are still providing 50 BILLION to a commuter bullet train that goes from basically desert to basically farmland.
Click to expand...
 
Meanwhile, the state's population has doubled since then. And becuase of the eco-political agenda preventing the diversion of water for human use, 70%+ of the rain and snow runoff goes straight into the salty big blue Pacific. Isn't it high time that the enviro-whackos are ignored and you start doing what's in the best interest of the people of the state? Let hose who fight be the first to give up their water. It's a matter of survival and sustainability at some point.
 
Phil said:
 
 ...70%+ of the rain and snow runoff goes straight into the salty big blue Pacific. 
Click to expand...
 
     What would be an acceptable percentage? At what point would a river's ecosystem be irreparably changed? I'm a trout fisherman, so the notion of diverting so much of a river's flow that it essentially dies is pretty disgusting to me. 
 
Well, being a resident of the Mississippi delta region and seeing how pipelining and river diversions have impacted the marshes here (we lose more than a football field of wetlands a day due to saltwater incursion), I'm not a big fan of diverting rivers at all. I do think more could be done to capture rain and snow melt runoff, though.
 
     I wonder how the cost of something like a separate grey water sewer system that is plumbed from cities directly to cropland would compare to other pipeline plans.

Phil said:
 I'm not a big fan of diverting rivers at all. I do think more could be done to capture rain and snow melt runoff, though.
Click to expand...
 
     I don't see how these two statements ^ aren't almost entirely contradictory. (On a large scale, at least.)
 
Stealing water from the fish or buying it from others isn't going to be along term fix.  If the western US climate continues to dry up, large scale desalination seems the only option.  Even after spending $5~10B on R/D, that $50B would buy quite a few large thorium powered desalination plants.
 
molten salt thorium reactors are far far far from being commercially deployed. the problems associated with reprossing insitu are myriad, and the material science is not there yet.

idk why the whole nuclear renaissance thing has been hijacked by thorium enthusiasts... its confusing.

should have been building ap1000 type reactors for the last 20 years. if you plan and engineer properly, the decomissioning and or radical retrofitting of these plants can be accomplished at reasonable costs.
 
queequeg152 said:
its not economic to move water on such a scale.

like i said, its cheaper to desalinate than it is to build some galatic scale inter state waterline.

70% of the us ag is NOT in california last i checked... California just makes the most money from Ag.

they grow fancy stuff like dates and nuts in california.

you ever buy pistachios? they cost a shit load.
Click to expand...
"99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots and the list goes on and on."
We are the largest producer of artichokes and pumpkins as well.
 
     Illinois produces way more pumpkins than California (roughly three times as much) and it's way easier to irrigate the fields that need it around here. 
 
Hybrid Mode 01 said:
 
     What would be an acceptable percentage? At what point would a river's ecosystem be irreparably changed? I'm a trout fisherman, so the notion of diverting so much of a river's flow that it essentially dies is pretty disgusting to me. 
Click to expand...
 
My opinion would be that the acceptable percentage would be what ever is necessary for the water production to continue. If Americans and Californians in particular choose to put such things as an endangered two inch fish above the economic livelihood and the essential need of water for all of the humans in the region, California needs to start working on some extreme population control ala China and the impending destruction of the agricultural industry in their state.... or they can say to hell with the pygmy sucker fish and develop what the humans in the region need to survive. Just my opinion.
 
At some point they have to realize that they cannot have their cake and eat it.
 
its not just about that particular fish though.

when you cut off a sizable protion of fresh water flowing down streams through marshes and out into the ocean you are inviting salt water intrusion issues which can be disastrous, possibly even effecting ground water.

i do agree though that, especially in these grievous circumstances where it arguably will not cause issues, water can and should be diverted.

i do agree that there is a certain element of irrational opposition to any an all water development projects, however all concerns are not without merit.
 
Phil said:
Well, being a resident of the Mississippi delta region and seeing how pipelining and river diversions have impacted the marshes here (we lose more than a football field of wetlands a day due to saltwater incursion), I'm not a big fan of diverting rivers at all. I do think more could be done to capture rain and snow melt runoff, though.
Click to expand...
What's scary there is that one day NOLA is going to sink. from what I've read the waters buoyancy is what is keep NOLA up even though it's lower than seal level lol.
 
Hybrid Mode 01 said:
     Illinois produces way more pumpkins than California (roughly three times as much) and it's way easier to irrigate the fields that need it around here. 
Click to expand...
Wow! I was not aware of that. They call Half Moon Bay, CA the "Pumpkin capital of the U.S." I assumed they grew the most. :eh:

queequeg152 said:
its not just about that particular fish though.

when you cut off a sizable protion of fresh water flowing down streams through marshes and out into the ocean you are inviting salt water intrusion issues which can be disastrous, possibly even effecting ground water.

i do agree though that, especially in these grievous circumstances where it arguably will not cause issues, water can and should be diverted.

i do agree that there is a certain element of irrational opposition to any an all water development projects, however all concerns are not without merit.
Click to expand...
I say just build more reservoirs.
 
Proud Marine Dad said:
Wow! I was not aware of that. They call Half Moon Bay, CA the "Pumkin capitol of the U.S." I assumed they grew the most. :eh:

I say just build more reservoirs.
Click to expand...
 
     Yup. I double checked USDA NASS (National Agriculture Statistics Service) before I posted. But it's a huge pain in the butt to navigate, so here's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpkin  Morton, Illinois is the Pumpkin Capitol of the World.
 
Considering that we don't have a water shortage here in the Mississippi delta, I've never had to consider how to deal with one. But I think California might be at a point where something's gotta give. That's pretty much all I'm getting at. Yes, river diversions have caused damage here. But it hasn't been at the cost of sustainable human existence. I don't have the answers, I just know if I have to choose between my kids and fishing for trout, I'd just have to find a new hobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top