Keystone for California?

In reply to Cone_Junkie:

You are very welcome to move to the mid-west. Plenty of land and water here.

Most states grow a lot of food, too. Just different food.

I've had some amazing fresh greens in the middle of winter here in Michigan.

I dont think engine exhaust is hot enough to evaporate a large amount of water. I ran an evaporator in the navy, a medium sized ship. We used 150psi steam I think output was 30,000 gallons a day. A couple nuke desal/electrical plants could really help cali a lot.....hahaha!

wearymicrobe wrote: 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.

THAT ought to help house prices.

KyAllroad wrote: 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?

Few people, called Canuks, might have a lot to say on this subject.

I am sure that you have heard the expression "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"?

Just to bring you up to speed...California is for the most part a desert. Putting 38 million people there was shortshighted. Some would say stupid. Some would say that its the geological Darwin award on a monumental scale. "Too big to fail" does not apply to Mother Natures rules.

So the question then becomes how to fix stupid? At the expense of the rest of the country? We seem to be at the limits of that option. California has already sucked the moisture out of every creek west of the Rockies.

Technology? Part of the problem is that California itself is so closed to any option that does not involve the rest of the nation supplying it with water, that there are no options.

Funny how with all the greatest minds in the world working on a solution, no environmental problem is ever addressed with the option of lowering the population? You want to talk about a white elephant in the room!

Me, I camped out next to the great lakes cause I saw this coming 30 years ago. Been freezing my ass watching Cali people groove on the fine weather, waiting for this time to arrive so I can gloat over a glass of water and flush my toilet!

Cone Junkie,

Would you please remove the term Tea Bagger from your post.

A lot of people, myself included, find it extremely offensive…like “N” word level offensive.

In reply to Cone_Junkie:

Way to throw a derogatory jab attempting to flounder a thread.

This issue is well known in SoCal's history, why else do you think Mulholland went around stealing water from other places for LA? The stupid amount of exotic agriculture(see massively water intensive) you guys do in an arid environment definitely hasn't helped either.

The people you need to look back and blame are your area's own historical leaders, not those now. I for one would only offer desalinization by way of new nuclear plants.....but there have been groups blocking those plants since the 70's. O.o

RX Reven' wrote: Cone Junkie, Would you please remove the term Tea Bagger from your post. A lot of people, myself included, find it extremely offensive…like “N” word level offensive.

What? Are you serious? Man alive, first SVRex with his hate crime thing in the miata thread, now we can't say tea bagger? Okee dokee!

In reply to NOHOME:

I thought I left my hose on all weekend, then I remembered we finally got our normal heavy late spring rains(about a week late). We're poised to be in the top-5 corn & soybean producers again this year.

yamaha wrote: In reply to NOHOME: I thought I left my hose on all weekend, then I remembered we finally got our normal heavy late spring rains(about a week late). We're poised to be in the top-5 corn & soybean producers again this year.

We should stop the gloating, Californians might decide to move here demand that the rest of the country pipe in heat and UV light for the winter!

I live in Ventura County just about ¼ mile north of the L.A. County line.

Effective today, we’ve got to reduce our water consumption by 36% relative to 2013 levels to avoid significant fines.

I’ve installed low flow stuff on the few shower heads / toilets that didn’t already have them, ensured we have no leaks, and my wife has been timing our two daughter’s showers for the last several weeks to get them down. That’s probably good for only a five to six percent reduction.

So, the lawn will have to go which I’m perfectly fine with (no more constantly messing with the sprinkler system) but I feel really bad for my gardener…he’s a super nice guy that I’ve known forever and he’s got kids to take care of and I doubt he has other skills.

He’ll make good money re-landscaping for a little while but then what?

BTW, here’s the real villain…it takes a whole gallon of water to produce ONE BERKLEYING ALMOND!

alfadriver wrote: 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.

Indiana can grow corn. Not the kind you eat, mind you. But they can grow corn.

Cone_Junkie wrote: ...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....

"Single biggest waste of residential water"

If you cut off ALL water for residential use (lawns, drinking, showers etc), you would reduce CA water use by around.... 20%!

Lawns are silly in most parts of CA, and use the majority of residential water, but they are minor part of the whole picture.

Asking residents to jump through hoops to cut down %25 of their water use gets a bit strange when that represents only about 6% of the states use while the other 80% is left mostly alone.

RX Reven' wrote: ...He’ll make good money re-landscaping for a little while but then what?

Sucks, but the VCR repair business is suffering also.

Times change, so must we all.

RX Reven' wrote: He’ll make good money re-landscaping for a little while but then what?

Then he will figure it out. C'mon, give the guy some credit. Just because you pay him now doesn't mean that is the only way he can make money.

NoHome: population everywhere is a problem, but whenever I mention the need for a good culling people treat my like the latest iteration of Jack-the-Ripper so in an attempt to be a more palatable person I was going with a more realistic solution than simply pushing 38 million people into the sea and saying "you shouldn't have moved to a desert, dumnass!"

And how could Canada have anything to say about it if we put a water intake in that puddle beside Duluth and drain off an unnoticeable amount to relieve an area that last time I checked had (by itself) the 9th largest economy in the world.

Edit: yeah I just checked and California has a GDP right next to that of Italy and a bit bigger than Canada.

rcutclif wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: He’ll make good money re-landscaping for a little while but then what?

Then he will figure it out. C'mon, give the guy some credit. Just because you pay him now doesn't mean that is the only way he can make money.

He’s in his mid-fifties, has marginal English speaking skills and will be “figuring it out” at the same time thousands of other gardeners in the same area will be “figuring it out”.

I don’t see how a real gardener unemployment problem isn’t coming our way. Not to game an unfortunate situation but it is worth noting that there’ll likely be a spike in the supply of good basic work trucks soon.

rcutclif wrote:

wearymicrobe wrote: 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.

THAT ought to help house prices.

I know it will make things ridiculously tight in terms of cost but if say a new developments puts in for a desalination with a bunch of other neighborhoods like they do with MellaRoo out here it could be possible. NIMBYism will keep the power plants and water desalination plants from being built though. Plus dealing with all the salt outflow.

Lof8 wrote: 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.

Yes, however it requires a huge amount of energy. So you're options are:

A) Build massive solar installations to generate enough electric for desalinization to work and run it to a plant located on in a region where property values are among some of the highest in the nation. But this will kill all of the endangered (insert something here) on land and all the endangered (insert something here in water).
B) Build a nuclear installation to generate enough electric for desalinization to work and run it to a plant located on in a region where property values are among some of the highest in the nation. But this will.... Yea you know what California and nuclear energy are like sodium and water.
C) Run a pipeline like they did to Owens Lake and Lake Mead then watch CA suck it dry all the while lecturing the rest of the country on the scarcity of resources.

Or apply California logic: restrict water useage by 25% for residential customers (accounting for maybe 10% to 12% of total usage depending upon who you ask.) Declare a win while allowing: bottled water companies to continue to drain ground water, subsidization cattle farming in the middle of the desert, and continuation of growing cash crops in the desert.

It's the states own mismanagement that put it in this position and I hope that I can move out before it implodes on itself.

Why doesn't California just pass a law to make it rain more? They think they can regulate everything else.

Nohome pretty much nailed it. Such a huge number of people moving to an area that can't possibly support that population was not a smart idea. But ooh, beach, pretty.

(born in and lived in CA for 28 years)

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.

Not to be an shiny happy person but California regularly goes out of it's way to try to impose it's will on the the rest of the country: see CARB and most firearm related laws. The state despite all of its enormous brain trust and money has been mismanaged for years both fiscally and in terms of natural resources despite the arguments to the contrary. Telling them to berkeley off when the chickens come home to roost is exactly what is needed for some sanity to take hold.

KyAllroad wrote: NoHome: population everywhere is a problem, but whenever I mention the need for a good culling people treat my like the latest iteration of Jack-the-Ripper so in an attempt to be a more palatable person I was going with a more realistic solution than simply pushing 38 million people into the sea and saying "you shouldn't have moved to a desert, dumnass!" And how could Canada have anything to say about it if we put a water intake in that puddle beside Duluth and drain off an unnoticeable amount to relieve an area that last time I checked had (by itself) the 9th largest economy in the world. Edit: yeah I just checked and California has a GDP right next to that of Italy and a bit bigger than Canada.

Like I keep posting- plenty of space here in the mid-west. Along with water and cheap homes. Send all you want back.

Lots and lots of farm land that isn't used anymore. Along with all this water...

The0retical wrote:

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.

Not to be an shiny happy person but California regularly goes out of it's way to try to impose it's will on the the rest of the country: see CARB and most firearm related laws. The state despite all of its enormous brain trust and money has been mismanaged for years both fiscally and in terms of natural resources despite the arguments to the contrary. Telling them to berkeley off when the chickens come home to roost is exactly what is needed for some sanity to take hold.

I know what you mean- but CARB is kind of a bad example of your point. CARB is more a result of states rights vs. federal. CARB's rules pre-date the EPA, so they are allowed to make rules for their state (which explains the C). They had a reason, too- the air and water quality in the state was horrible.

Now it's up to each state to choose to use the CARB rules vs. the EPA.

So while they have turned into a very political organization over just looking at the air quality- the states are allowed to choose to follow them or not.

At least until Tier 3 comes around. THEN your point is valid. But that's not for another 5 years until it starts phasing in.

Anyway, back to the water discussion.

There IS still a lot of water in Northern California. Get more of it. At least until the state of Northern California is formed.

The0retical wrote:

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.

Not to be an shiny happy person but California regularly goes out of it's way to try to impose it's will on the the rest of the country: see CARB and most firearm related laws. The state despite all of its enormous brain trust and money has been mismanaged for years both fiscally and in terms of natural resources despite the arguments to the contrary. Telling them to berkeley off when the chickens come home to roost is exactly what is needed for some sanity to take hold.

We are also something like the 9th largest economy in the world when you compare California to other COUNTRIES. California has a GDP bigger then all of Canada combined, heck we are only a few hundred million under all of Russia which has one of the largest landmasses on earth to exploit.

1,958,904,000,000$ at last count

Yes we throw our weight around a little bit but its because we have the weight to do it. Why do you think we cannot stand places like Iowa which have more impact on DC politics then what would be another nation in terms of value.

In reply to wearymicrobe:

Oh I understand all that. I just don't appreciate the holier than thou attitude regarding natural resource conservation. My beef is that when there's a problem, like a drought, the state utilizes a model of diminishing returns to show that something is being done rather than addressing the problem in a feasible logical way. A 25% reduction of 10% of the water use isn't going to save the state and no one wants to address the elephant in the room.

**I should add that yes the farming industry has added invaluable knowledge about farming in arid climates however the current usage model is unsustainable for manufacturing and farming which accounts for the bulk of the non-environmental usage..

Something is going to have to give and it's probably going to cause a GDP hit unless the state can come up with a way cheap to generate sustainable freshwater reserves. This means getting past a huge number of single self interests which constantly block the way. Piping it in just provides a band aid for a hemorrhage.

I live in the state because the region has the weather and landmass do the research, development, and testing in environments that we operate in. It's fantastic being well compensated and doing what I do. I am slowly changing my landscaping over to xeriscaping because I'm cheap and don't enjoy mowing grass. None of that means that I don't think some sanity should be injected into someones idealistic dream from time to time. Or maybe I'm just a bitter shiny happy person northeasterner who hates sunshine and endangered squirrels.

Also with 55 electoral votes (20.37% of the way to being elected) I don't think the state has any trouble throwing it's weight around. I've always found the Iowa caucus to be an inane indicator of a political candidate chances too.

Greg and brown water recovery can help a lot too especially for agriculture and golf course uses. They even are trying to do grey water brewing in Portland. http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-water-treatment-company-wants-to-turn-sewage-into-beer/

I've seen the numbers and tasted the water and I think there needs to be a lot more of this type of usage.

California is in bad shape but there are a lot of areas just as bad. If it wasn't for the recent rains, we would be just as bad off in Texas. We need to get smarter about water management. I don't want to have to live in the great lakes again to have water.