Keystone for California?

wearymicrobe wrote: then what would be another nation in terms of value.

I'm glad you used value. Considering that California has an extra 3 million people compared to Canada, and the gdp was about 100 million higher... value is a good word to use.

I took a tour of the Lake Shasta Dam last year and I believe the guide said that 40% of California’s fresh water is released into its delta’s to maintain salinity levels.

So, the whole 83% agriculture / 17% commercial and residential is really only 49.8% agriculture / 10.2% commercial and residential and the 25% reduction we’re expected to make only represents 2.55% of the total fresh water.

Here’s a pretty in-depth article put out by the USGS:

USGS Article

I think you'd have to say that for the most part, Californian’s are pretty good at practicing what they preach…we’ve got 32 million people in the middle of a desert and yet we manage to get by with just 10% of the true amount of fresh water.

However, tabloids and local news sources are publically humiliating our celebrities with aero photographs of their home’s indulgent landscapes.

Hehehe

alfadriver wrote: They can always move back to the mid-west. A whole lot cheaper than moving water out there.

Whoa, now. Stop talkin' crazy! Ain't nobody gonna want them durn Californians movin' into town.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

Actually I'd rather they wouldn't.......our Midwest states won't tolerate their jibberish.

Water is too cheap in California. In Michigan it's basically free because we're surrounded by the stuff. In California it's a scarce resource.
Yes California produces a lot of agricultural product, but most of that is related to an absurd amount of sunlight and cheap water. If they use water at a sustainable level they can't grow as much and their agriculture starts to look more like the Midwest where water is abundant, but sunlight isn't. Let me know when California wants to send the rest of the country free electricity made from their abundant sunlight and I'll let you know when the rest of the country wants to send them free water. It's a big country, we don't give each other stuff, we sell it to each other. Oil, timber, mineral resources, hell, Michigan exports sand. Water is for sale, California just has to want to buy it at whatever the market rate is.

mazdeuce wrote: Water is too cheap in California. In Michigan it's basically free because we're surrounded by the stuff. In California it's a scarce resource. Yes California produces a lot of agricultural product, but most of that is related to an absurd amount of sunlight and cheap water. If they use water at a sustainable level they can't grow as much and their agriculture starts to look more like the Midwest where water is abundant, but sunlight isn't. Let me know when California wants to send the rest of the country free electricity made from their abundant sunlight and I'll let you know when the rest of the country wants to send them free water. It's a big country, we don't give each other stuff, we sell it to each other. Oil, timber, mineral resources, hell, Michigan exports sand. Water is for sale, California just has to want to buy it at whatever the market rate is.

Fully agree let economics work.

In reply to mazdeuce:

I for one would much rather not see the real breadbasket of america end up like the Colorado river basin. We came close to that in the early 1900's thanks to people who didn't understand the great plains.

California is not a desert. Part of south east California is desert, but the geography and weather of the state is very diverse. The current problem is a prolonged drought. California has not constructed a significant new reservoir since 1979. Most of our rain, even in the wettest of years, occurs in the winter and spring, with rain in the summer and fall being very rare. We need to store water from the wet season to get through the dry season. Fortunately, we have a large natural reservoir in the form of the Sierra snow pack, which usually melts over the summer and gives us a consistent supply of fresh water. But if the snowpack is low, we have to rely more on our man made reservoirs. We need to catch up on the man made reservoirs, which have become increasingly hard to build due to environmental restrictions that we impose on ourselves. Desalinization plants are too costly to build and operate, and would only be useful during prolonged periods of drought. Australia tried that route when they expirenced their last drought, and most of the plants are now shuttered. The good news is that signs are already pointing towards an end to the drought. Even the most devout climate change scientists point out that California is expiriencing a weather pattern, not climate change. Not very publicized is that this last May was much wetter than average in the Sierras, adding to the snowpack and filling mountain lakes. We are still way behind, but it's a welcome boost. That said, we need a better long term plan, not knee jerk reactions. Remember the politician's motto, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

You are correct, its just the bottom 1/3 that is a dessert.....but there's plenty of stupid taking place. You either need more reservoirs, which piss of environmentalists, or new nuclear power for desalinization. Nuke plants are the only way currently to make the electricity needed to do so economically......which will also piss off the environmentalists. Or, your state can sit down and actually figure out wtf they berkeleyed up and work to fix it, but the first two options seem more likely. LoL

Wow. Someone, whose profile say he's from Kentucky, suggests a pipeline to take great lakes water to California. Now there is 3 pages of anti-California hate, flounder, civics lessons and economic theorizing.

As a resident of California I would just like to say, I AM NOT ASKING FOR GREAT LAKES WATER. I am not asking for more Colorado river water. The water shortage is largely our problem to solve and we are working on it.

The0retical wrote: ...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...

Interestingly enough agriculture in CA, for what I heard, only represents about 10% of the economy. So, even completely killing agriculture in CA would not have that big of an effect on CA economy, it would however make food more expensive for everyone.

In reply to Type Q:

And that sir, makes sense. You don't need more from elsewhere, that's what got you into this mess.....you guys, and you alone, need to fix it.

In reply to PHeller:

Strangely enough, it has been a long time since I have seen many wheat fields in Indiana .....its all corn/soybeans now. A boatload of us grow "tofu beans" for all you "non-gmo" hipsters.....

Yeah, I'm not so sure I trust that map. Because I can't tell you the last time I saw a wheat field in Illinois, but I can probably climb to the top of my building in Chicago and find a corn field.

Exaggerating. Slightly.

shows grain for NC … I don't see many grain fields around here … maybe down east .. but I thought that was mostly soybeans or peanuts (forgot tobacco)

and Yet nestle gets to bottle all the water they want.. while Californians are being asked not to take showers...

just out of curiosity … why so much water bottling co. in PRC ? with the on again off again water shortages there, why aren't these companies somewhere else ? more water availability, and some cases, mo-better water to start with (at least as far as advertising would say)

Are you sure about that? Here in Perth a full 50% of our drinking water is from desalination. A significant source of energy for that is wind.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Australia tried that route when they expirenced their last drought, and most of the plants are now shuttered.

Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Are you sure about that? Here in Perth a full 50% of our drinking water is from desalination. A significant source of energy for that is wind.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Australia tried that route when they expirenced their last drought, and most of the plants are now shuttered.

Shhhhhh, this is the internet!

We need not use facts, but rampant conjecture and speculation!

wbjones wrote: just out of curiosity … why so much water bottling co. in PRC ? with the on again off again water shortages there, why aren't these companies somewhere else ? more water availability, and some cases, mo-better water to start with (at least as far as advertising would say)

I suspect it has mostly to do with access to transportation hubs. I know there is a plant outside of Los Angeles next to the mountain pass that goes to Palm Springs which of course is reasonably close to LA, it's harbor, a significant rail line and of course many freeways. The plant in Sacramento (which uses the city water, not spring water) is of course right in the middle of the state.

BTW - although it seems pretty silly, they really don't use THAT much water compared to other things (e.g. farming). Probably more significant is that they pay, compared to residential users, almost nothing for the water.

wbjones wrote: just out of curiosity … why so much water bottling co. in PRC ? with the on again off again water shortages there, why aren't these companies somewhere else ? more water availability, and some cases, mo-better water to start with (at least as far as advertising would say)

I'd hazard a guess that since water is heavy, it's generally bottled pretty close to it's point of sale.

I hate Nestle as much as the next guy, but this bottling deal really is a drop in the figurative bucket, meant to distract from the big users. I did the math once, using some real worst case numbers, i.e. all bottled water consumed in the USA comes from Nestle, bottled in CA, and it worked out to 0.07% of total usage or something nutty like that.

In reply to z31maniac:

My "rampant conjecture and speculation" came from an actual printed newspaper, not the internet. Perhaps you should do your own research before you dismiss and ridicule other's contributions to to conversation. Like California, Austrialia is a large and diverse place. Their drought persists in some places and has subsided in others. Some desalinization plants are still in use, others are not. From the article...

AUSTRALIA: Billions were spent on desalination plants in major cities -- a decision that remains hugely divisive. Many of the plants are not currently operating because cheaper water is available for now in Australia, prompting critics to dismiss them as expensive and power-hungry flops that will create greenhouse gases and worsen the continent's climate-change woes. Supporters say the plants will protect the country from the next inevitable drought.

Here is the complete article, a good read on subject of the California drought...

Contra Costa Times Article

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to z31maniac: My "rampant conjecture and speculation" came from an actual printed newspaper, not the internet. Perhaps you should do your own research before you dismiss and ridicule other's contributions to to conversation. Like California, Austrialia is a large and diverse place. Their drought persists in some places and has subsided in others. Some desalinization plants are still in use, others are not. From the article... AUSTRALIA: Billions were spent on desalination plants in major cities -- a decision that remains hugely divisive. Many of the plants are not currently operating because cheaper water is available for now in Australia, prompting critics to dismiss them as expensive and power-hungry flops that will create greenhouse gases and worsen the continent's climate-change woes. Supporters say the plants will protect the country from the next inevitable drought. Here is the complete article, a good read on subject of the California drought... Contra Costa Times Article

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to z31maniac: My "rampant conjecture and speculation" came from an actual printed newspaper, not the internet. Perhaps you should do your own research before you dismiss and ridicule other's contributions to to conversation. Like California, Austrialia is a large and diverse place. Their drought persists in some places and has subsided in others. Some desalinization plants are still in use, others are not. From the article... AUSTRALIA: Billions were spent on desalination plants in major cities -- a decision that remains hugely divisive. Many of the plants are not currently operating because cheaper water is available for now in Australia, prompting critics to dismiss them as expensive and power-hungry flops that will create greenhouse gases and worsen the continent's climate-change woes. Supporters say the plants will protect the country from the next inevitable drought. Here is the complete article, a good read on subject of the California drought... Contra Costa Times Article

we really REALLY need a sarcasm font or emoticon

like z31maniac said … lighten up dude