Keystone for California?

So I assume you have all heard that California (the PRC to some of you) is in the middle of the worst drought in living memory which is about to get a lot worse this summer.

My thought is that we as a nation/society have bandied about at great length things like the Keystone pipeline but I haven't heard anything about building a substantial pipeline from places with plenty of water (Lake Superior for instance) following the interstate system and distributing the water to places that really need it (the aforementioned PRC).

Water flows easy compared with tar sand crude and a leak wouldn't ruin the affected land for generations. We kinda need the agricultural output of California and the economic hit of the drought is going to run to the billions. So why isn't there talk of laying some pipe?

Take it from the Mississippi. Leave the Great Lakes alone.

Take it from Texas, duh. And keep moving the ends of the pipe around as global warming gets worse (or as the Illuminati scientists engineer these disasters, if you prefer )

$!

You think the other 49 states want to foot the bill to pipe water to CA?

KyAllroad wrote: Pipeline things...

Let's welcome William Shatner to the board everybody... The Shat beat you by a month.. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/21/william-shatner-california-drought-seattle-pipe/26111213/

KyAllroad wrote: So why isn't there talk of laying some pipe?

Now we are talking. Dear Penthouse Letters,

Isn't there sufficient technology to convert ocean water to potable water at this point? I'm pretty sure my rich uncle has one one his yacht.

Sufficient technology, sure. Sufficient energy and waste disposal capability, maybe not.

I think you need to look at the amount of oil a typical large pipeline transports, and the amount of water that would be needed to fill up lake Shasta (the primary CA reservoir in very northern California) or the amount needed to reduce the drought. I suspect there is a bit of a mismatch.

The time it would take the build the required line would most certainly be until far after this crisis is over. Not that that matters (there will be more), but that makes it politically difficult. CA also currently have a very large financial commitment to a high speed rail project that no one really wants, or will use. So there's that.

Also of note: California is currently likely to be hit by a rather strong El Nino next winter, which means LOTS of water (too much actually). So, that will get interesting. Not really relevant in the drought argument, but it will certainly confuse the populace.

If the entirety of the Colorado River can't quench California's thirst, a stupid 10-foot pipe is supposed to do the trick?

They can always move back to the mid-west.

A whole lot cheaper than moving water out there.

In reply to Lof8:

Yeah, but you need to build super evil nuclear reactors to make them cheap to run, and then you have to get rid of the big pile of salt somehow.

Your rich uncles watermaker probably burns quite a bit of diesel for the water it puts out. Usually it's a reverse osmosis system driven by a pressure washer pump mounted to the engine.

I always wondered if any boats use engine/exhaust heat to distill seawater. Exhaust heat isn't free but it's cheap.

Grow native plants and trees in California and the problem is solved. They use so much water trying to support agriculture, etc. in areas that should be desert or high plains that it takes away from the available water for the whole state to operate on.

The other option is brown water recovery. Currently, there are filtration systems out there that allow for actually more pure water than the typical water supplies. I know as my wife's company sells and installs them.

In reply to Duke: Actually yes. The flow possible through a 10' pipeline would be positively silly.

The desalination idea is crazy energy intensive.

Moving the population east is a nice idea but hardly likely to happen.

Building a network of pipelines to redistribute the have to the have not (similar to our electrical grid) would allow water to move from areas of excess to areas of need. Yes this minute Texas has too much water but in reality their reservoirs and lakes are still underfilled.

In reply to ConeJunkie: it's a nation thing, not just a state thing. We all need to pull together and saying "berkeley you" to the one who lags behind for a minute is a pretty hard attitude to take.

GameboyRMH wrote: I always wondered if any boats use engine/exhaust heat to distill seawater. Exhaust heat isn't free but it's cheap.

Every cruise ship does that.

KyAllroad wrote: Moving the population east is a nice idea but hardly likely to happen. Building a network of pipelines to redistribute the have to the have not (similar to our electrical grid) would allow water to move from areas of excess to areas of need. Yes this minute Texas has too much water but in reality their reservoirs and lakes are still underfilled.

No, it's a whole lot cheaper to move back east. By inch-acres of logic.

If you want water, don't live in a desert. Pretty simple logic. Even better, if you want fresh water, live near the largest bodies of fresh water in the world.

bmw88rider wrote: Grow native plants and trees in California and the problem is solved. They use so much water trying to support agriculture, etc. in areas that should be desert or high plains that it takes away from the available water for the whole state to operate on. The other option is brown water recovery. Currently, there are filtration systems out there that allow for actually more pure water than the typical water supplies. I know as my wife's company sells and installs them.

Last night on 60 Minutes they showed some Cali town making drinkable water from sewage in 45 minutes. Of course they don't use it for drinking, they inject it back nto the ground to recharge the acquifier. Seems to me every town should be required to treat their poop water to this extent.

KyAllroad wrote: In reply to ConeJunkie: it's a nation thing, not just a state thing. We all need to pull together and saying "berkeley you" to the one who lags behind for a minute is a pretty hard attitude to take.

Sorry, but it is California we are talking about.

They need to start working with all that free untaxable solar energy Southern California touts so much for desalinization.

bmw88rider wrote: Grow native plants and trees in California and the problem is solved. They use so much water trying to support agriculture, etc.

I don't know, I like being able to eat.

"California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 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). Some of this is due to climate and soil. No other state, or even a combination of states, can match California’s output per acre. Lemon yields in California, for example, are more than 50 percent higher than in Arizona. California spinach yield per acre is 60 percent higher than the national average. Without California, supply of all these products in the United States and abroad would dip, and in the first few years, a few might be nearly impossible to find. Orchard-based products in particular, such as nuts and some fruits, would take many years to spring back."

In reply to z31maniac:

You would be forced to eat stuff that can be grown locally, reminding yourself what food is supposed to taste like, since shipping it isn't a function of how it's being grown. I'd much rather eat a tomato in season when it's ripe than one from California that's bred to ship here. California Straberries are completely tasteles/pointless.

And may even be forced to understand how to preserve food.

No, there isn't a single state that can match California, but if more states looked at what they can contribute, I bet much of the hole could be made up.

There's a reason I'm tyring to grow more stuff in my own back yard.

I grew up in Colorado. We used to say, "flush twice, texas needs the water." Simply replace texas with just about any south western state you like.

Not that Colorado really has any sort of abundance of water to begin with.

All those who want a pipeline from out east - Colorado is part of the problem. Not politically, but it is built out of a significant amount of rock. Moving stuff north-south is a lot easier than moving it east-west. You'll note that Keystone takes this geographic awkwardness into consideration.

I make sure to pee in California's drinking water as often as possible

You'll be in for a fight shipping water out of the Great Lakes Basin.

As I understand it, CA put themselves into this mess, most of the farming they do there is heavily dependent on artificial irrigation. Nobody is going to starve if they cut back to reasonable levels, as alfadriver said, you'll just have put up with (or pay up) not eating fresh fruit in January.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: You'll be in for a fight shipping water out of the Great Lakes Basin. As I understand it, CA put themselves into this mess, most of the farming they do there is heavily dependent on artificial irrigation. Nobody is going to starve if they cut back to reasonable levels, as alfadriver said, you'll just have put up with (or pay up) not eating fresh fruit in January.

This is true but we have grandfathered in water rights to old farms here and these is no chainging the law that is going to get them off the tit. Additionally we have no groundwater limits for drilling wells which is just insane as well.

The thing that I have heard floating around is no more development, IE if you cannot come up with the water for all the people who want to move here. Then you don't get to build.

KyAllroad wrote: In reply to Duke: Actually yes. The flow possible through a 10' pipeline would be positively silly. The desalination idea is crazy energy intensive. Moving the population east is a nice idea but hardly likely to happen. Building a network of pipelines to redistribute the have to the have not (similar to our electrical grid) would allow water to move from areas of excess to areas of need. Yes this minute Texas has too much water but in reality their reservoirs and lakes are still underfilled. In reply to ConeJunkie: it's a nation thing, not just a state thing. We all need to pull together and saying "berkeley you" to the one who lags behind for a minute is a pretty hard attitude to take.

As you can see by some of the replies in this thread what we are up against. Just because we produce a large amount of agriculture for our country, most shallow sighted people just say "berkeley you california".

Just like the douche bag senators that voted against Hurricane Sandy relief are now begging for Federal dollars to help their flood victims.

De-salanization is a potential source, but that takes a E36 M3 ton of energy and money. Both of which are in short supply.

Personally I'm all for killing off almost all decorative landscape. Lawns are the single biggest waste of water around and have nearly no functional use. Drought resistant and regional plants are the way to go.

We would love to make a lot of solar, and we're working on it. But of course you get the same blow back when money is needed to develop the technology. Who's willing to spend thier tax money on solar tech? (raises hand). Anyone else? (didn't think so). We are a short sighted country who can't even agree on the proven science of Climate Change. How the hell do you expect the Tea Baggers to want to invest in water and energy infrastrucure? That money could be spent on more guns and taller border fences.

We will survive the drought. Just can't wait to hear about how produce is so damn expensive now though...