Slashdot Mirror
William Shatner Proposes $30 Billion Water Pipeline To California
Taco Cowboy writes The 84-year-old Star Trek star wants to build a water pipeline to California. All it'll cost, according to Mr. Shatner, is $30 billion, and he wants to KickStarter the funding campaign. According to Mr. Shatner, if the KickStarter campaign doesn't raise enough money then he will donate whatever that has been collected to a politician who promise to build that water pipe. Where does he wants to get the water? Seattle, "A place where there's a lot of water. There's too much water," says Mr. Shatner.
Southern California has a long history of stealing water from other places...
Time to just jack up the water rates so people move out.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
He's right, there is plenty of water. It's in the Pacific Ocean. If there's 30 billion to spend (and there isn't), use it to improve desalination methods. Don't rob other cities of their water.
Seattle's water is all going into the ocean. How about using the ocean to transport all that water to southern California instead of building a pipeline? All you have to do is remove a little bit of salt it picked up along the way! I'm guessing 30B bucks would build quite a few desalination plants.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Governor Inslee expands drought emergency to include more of Washington
This seems like a bad idea. It doesn't solve the issue of them wanting to grow crops in a dessert. And they have the audacity to suggest building a pipeline to an area that is currently suffering from a drought? Sure, Washington state won't be drought-stricken forever, but what will they do when both states are in a drought?
How about build a desalination plant with use of nuclear power in California?
Or, we east coasters could stop eat so much lettuce.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
How about California stops growing almonds. Water crisis averted.
Wouldn't this pretty much just kick the can down the road a little, encouraging MORE people to move to what's essentially a water-starved area?
-Styopa
What does California have lots of?
A: Coast-line.
B: Sunshine!
I wonder why they can't use these together to create a water supply, and natural sea salt without minerals removed, or adding anti-caking agents? Who knows? Perhaps the solar arrays to run this would over-produce, and can add to the national grid?
But hey. I'm obviously mad for thinking such things.
And $30B will get you 30 desal plants like Carlsbad's, which cost $1B, and which will provide 7% of what San Diego area residents need.
But the $30B won't get you the power it takes to run them (new power plants?) Or the energy required to power the power plants.
Also, CA's agriculture depends upon cheap water, not expensive desalinated water.
That said, would a $30B pipeline bring in the same amount of water as desal plants? Or more? Operating expenses are sure to be lower, but there'd need to be a detailed economic and engineering case made for one solution over the other.
--PM
I, for one, will NEVER stop sprinkling shaved almonds on my Romaine lettuce!
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Worst. Idea. Ever.
What this would amount to in practice is tapping the Great Lakes to enable unsustainable development in the Southwest. This would be an ecological disaster for both the Great Lakes, which are already losing volume due to climate change, and the Southwest, which has been unsustainably developed for decades.
How about, instead of massive engineering projects, we just don't build cities where there aren't enough natural resources to sustain them?
It's the key 21st century project that needs to get done to keep the US safe from droughts, aquifer depletion and powerful storms.
Silly boy. Under what scenario do you figure that the western states won't simply use all the water we have back east, then demand more? The west coast of California is seeing the dream of living where it hardly ever rains, yet taking other people's water, come to an end.
Get your water where the Colorado river reaches the sea.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
According to Mr. Shatner, if the KickStarter campaign doesn't raise enough money then he will donate whatever that has been collected...
...to a politician who promise to build that water pipe.
Haha! He almost had me going there, right up until that last bit. Well played, Shatner, well played.
What?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I imagine that much of the water used to grow anything out here us lost through evaporation. This is why I stopped trying to go a patio garden. I just could not justify the level of wasted water that was going into it when we have such a short supply.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Like many western states CA has a systems of water rights that gives rights to water to whomever got there first. It also means you get all of yours before the next person gets any, and so on down the line. That was fine until CA started to outgrow the available supply, and as a result some are left at the end of the pipe so to speak, with little or no water. Add in a desire by farmers to protect their access at the expense of others, and little demand to limit losses along the way to evaporation, etc, and you have a big problem. If farmers had to pay market rates for water they'd change their use habits, just as other users will as prices rise. As for desalination plants, they would be a good solution but no doubt would face NIMBY battles even as the same people want water; like power, they want it from a tap but don't want a plant next door producing it. The bottom line is souther CA can't continue to grow like it is and keep the same water use habits.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Or, we east coasters could stop eat so much lettuce.
Or we could start growing our own again.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
How about, instead of massive engineering projects, we just don't build cities where there aren't enough natural resources to sustain them?
So then, we should avoid building cities in the Great Lakes region, where it gets really cold in winter and people have to use natural gas that was mined in Texas and the Dakotas?
There's this thing called comparitive advantage. The southwest has tons of potential for producing solar energy, let's not shut down development there yet.
If the people in Liberalwood want to do something constructive, they wold stop opposing desalination and let that $30 billion be spent getting California its own water supply.
This is exactly the wrong approach. The last thing California needs is more idiotic "top down" solutions that ignore basic economics. Desalination is a way to exchange expensive and scarce electricity for cheap and plentiful water. It only makes sense because of the artificially inflated cost of water in urban areas. Meanwhile, farmers are using massive amounts of cheap subsidized water to grow rice and cotton in the desert. End the subsidies. Set a market price for water. Problem solved.
... how about charging those rural parasites fair market value for the water they use, reflecting the scarce/non-renewable nature of fossil water??
Asking greedy/short-sighted primary producers to take some of that personal responsibility they vote for and foist onto the urban poor is only fair. If the shoe fits, wear it.
... fewer people.
That is the big issue here. Even while they talk about water conservation they're still zoning more land for development. Still building more apartments. Still building more office parks. Still building stuff they can't provide water or power or transport for...
So why are we doing that?
Here is how we fix this issue. Link development to existing infrastructure. Lock California's development to the resources it can actually provide to residents. Then if people want to build something new, they FIRST have to get the infrastructure expanded.
The issue will solve itself quite quickly.
And LA didn't steal the water. It bought it. Yes, I know the people of Owens valley were very sad that the water all went away. It was bought and paid for. Get over it.
The old city fathers of Los Angeles wouldn't have let this happen to them. They took care of business. The existing leadership have their heads so far up their own asses they don't know what is going on anymore. It is sad watching them. They try to do good. They really do. But they can't. Too much corruption. Too many special interests. Too many people milking the system. They can't do anything. All the money and political will goes to graft. Nothing left for visionary urban planning. Nothing left to keep the city vibrant.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I can't believe that it takes over a gallon of water to grow a single almond. Maybe they should look at ways of improving that.
If they don't, terrorists will start buying almonds to destroy California.
Or here's an idea. Don't build in areas where there isn't much water. Wipe Las Vegas and Phoenix off the map because there is NO reason there should be large metropolitan areas in the middle of a desert. I've even heard ridiculous ideas like diverting water from the Mississippi basin or the Great Lakes to make sure the idiots in Las Vegas can fill their swimming pools. Those cities are prime examples of doing something because we can without considering whether we should.
To get back on topic, there is NO way a $30 billion pipeline makes more sense than some very large scale desalination plants. If they need the water that badly then there is literally a whole ocean of it on the coast of California. You can buy a LOT of desalination for that kind of cheddar.
Shatner isnt saying anything new, just regurgitating shit he hears on AM radio and KTLA. As an LA resident, there is a shortage of water and there honestly always has been. Car washes recycle water up to 25 times, fruit aisles with sprayers recycle their water, toilets are already damned efficient, and anyone in DTLA can attest we rarely wash sidewalks. The solutions are dead simple, but ardent vocal minorities oppose them.
Farms: the northern half of the US is going to need to stop insisting on a seasonless produce aisle. Its unsustainable. Strawberries in january contribute to carbon emissions and water depletion. Stop pumping the avocado market and realize its a fatty fruit that doesnt need to become the staple diet of a population with 60% obesity and leading the world in heart disease. We dont need to be grazing cattle and making rice, a crop that requires a flooded field. The thing we do best is dates, a plant that grows in arid climates anyhow. Rooibos, Honeybush, Drumstick, and other tough-as-nails plants can come play on the farm too.
The well-to-do.: Stop insisting every gated community and shopping consumatorium in OC needs flushing fountains and gurgling streams. trade in your opulent midwestern lawns for landscape that conforms to the climate. I know, its a step closer to the unwashed masses, but youre doing us a favour.
Beer: We probably dont need to be making this, or if we need to revisit it. It takes 5 litres of fresh purified water to create 1 litre of beer. Bottled water, while often associated, hasnt been popular in LA for a while. Its mostly filtered and decanted from the restaraunt.
Works Departments: FIX. THE. LEAKS. I cant tell you how many times ive seen legacy hillside irrigation blasting 20ft jets of clean water near roads on the 101. Hydrants, pipes, water fountains, and the automatic public toilets need regular service or they just waste water.
Good people go to bed earlier.
That's a fallacy.
The 2 "crops" that are taking the water:
Shut those 2 things down and water problem solved.
UPS Sucks
Or, we east coasters could stop eat so much lettuce.
Or we could start growing our own again.
We do. Find a nice local CSA, Support them. Ours is now doing produce year round thanks to hoop and green houses .
UPS Sucks
Guys, people plant in California because it's one of the most fertile soils in the USA.
No, they plant there because of the temps. NOT the soil. Its "fertile" because of Monsanto chemicals.
UPS Sucks
How about taking the fresh river water as it is about to dump into the Pacific, and pipe it through the ocean in poly blend pipes that are easy to install and repair... a leak would do no damage
You mean except for the salt getting into your freshwater supply when you inevitably spring a leak? (Think osmotic gradient) You mean except for altering the ecosystem of the river delta? You would have to have some pretty huge pipes (or REALLY high pressure) to take a meaningful amount of water to where it is wanted. It is NOT trivial to pipe a significant percentage of the outflow of a river somewhere else.
I don't mean to be overly harsh because the idea does have some charm to it but there are some pretty serious issues in play with such a scheme. I have a hard time believing that it would make more sense than simply building some large scale desalination plants close to where the water is needed. You would still have to pipe the water across land at some point anyway.
A politician opens up a large pipeline project for bids. The first guy comes and says he can build it for 20 billion dollars. The second guy comes in and says he can build it for 10 billion dollars. The third guy comes in an says "I can build it for 30 billion dollars."
"30 billion?!?", exclaimed the politician. "We've got bids that are far less expensive. Explain yourself!"
"Certainly", oozed the third guy. "Ten billion for you. Ten billion for me, and ten billion to hire the second guy to do the actual work".
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Silicon Valley *used* to be the most fertile soil in the US, but it has been paved over...
and that was true before Monsanto was in the GMO business.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
hahaha, your brain can't grasp rudimentary concepts of scale and magnitude.
Nestle used 50 million gallons from Sacramento sources last year. California households alone use 360 million gallons PER DAY.
Does that mean anything to you? Does that make one neuron of common sense fire between your ears?
a four-foot pipeline isn't going to fix bugger all.
At high water velocity (i.e. not long haul practical) the best a four foot pipeline can do is approximately 4 000 litres per second (about 1000 usgal/s) or about 300,000 cubic meters per day. At this flow rate, the headlosses would require multiple pumping stations to keep the water moving. The electrical costs would be enormous. Additionally, At 0.4 cu.m./cap/day that would support approximately 750,000 people at average North American usage rates. Somehow a generational project like this should serve more than just a portion of L.A.
How about California spends a whole lot less cash and start recycling a portion of the billions of gallons of water released by Californians into the sea?
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
So maybe we should develop solar plants there and not almond farms. Just sayin'
What is the water source? The hundred thousand square miles of watershed? How would this work? There are probably thousands of "owners" across multiple states or even nations. You are acting like water rights are some simple issue that hasn't been contentious for the last 10,000 years or so.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Guys, people plant in California because it's one of the most fertile soils in the USA.
Too bad it's a semi-arid climate-- that's to say, much of the time it's a desert.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There is never too much water, and frankly this is what you get when you build in a desert.
It won’t be much longer before mountains have no snow, then there will be no rivers, no fish, nothing.
When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money
-Cree Indian
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Desalination is a plausible solution for water for consumer use--that is, urban and suburban locations.
It is not a very plausible solution for agricultural use-- too expensive. Do you realize that those people take the water and just dump it on the ground?
*(well, some of the suburban people just spray it on the ground, too. But they spray millions and millions of gallons on lawns. Sounds like a lot... but agriculture uses trillions of gallons.)
Water rights are complicated. Since the rule is, whoever grabbed it first owns the rights to the water, the people who own it aren't necessarily the ones who use it most responsibly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Agriculture is 80% of California's water use (although only 1.5% of California's economy) The big problem is almonds. Who would have thought that such a niche foodstuff would drive agricultural water? https://www.bostonglobe.com/bu...
Trillions? Yep: http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Spock: Dr. McCoy, it appears that the Captain has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do?
McCoy: I'm a doctor, not a psychiatrist, you pointy-eared computer!
Spock: Is a psychiatrist not a type of physician, Dr. McCoy?
McCoy: Look, Spock - my name's "McCoy", not "Webster." I'm a doctor, not a dictionary!
Spock: Entomology notwithstanding, Doctor, is there nothing you can do to help the Captain with his fantasy of solving the drought problem via a multi-billion dollar pipeline from Seattle?
McCoy: I'm doctor, not an engineer, Spock!
Spock: (Pauses)
Spock: Captain, it appears that the Doctor has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do?
Kirk: It looks like the Californian water crisis will have to wait. We didn't beam down with any "Red Shirts" so we'll have to solve the doctor's problem ourselves. Phasors on stun, Mr. Spock. Fire at will.
(Spock fires at Dr. McCoy. McCoy drops.)
Kirk: Spock, scan the Doctor with the Tricorder. Any sign of intelligence?
Spock: No, Captain. Intelligence readings are unchanged. However, the Doctor has been successfully stunned.
Kirk: Good work, Spock. Now, back to the drought problem.
Spock: But Captain, doesn't The Prime Directive prevent you from stepping in to solve Earth's environmental problems?
Kirk: Precisely, Mr. Spock. But we finally solved the "McCoy" problem - at least for now.
Spock: I see, Captain...your logic is impeccable...
Kirk: Scottie, two to beam up.
Do the math - bottled water doesn't even move the dial compared to agriculture. Total US consumption of bottle water per year = 10 billion gallons or about 31,000 acre feet. An acre-foot is about what one household uses per year, so it's the equivalent of a small city. In contrast, California uses 38 billion gallons a DAY. Stopping bottled water will not solve the water crisis. Alfalfa would certainly have a bigger impact.
http://www.latimes.com/busines...
Right, and for an encore they can figure out how to get the water from that desalination plant to flow uphill.
People don't realize how much water distribution networks rely on gravity; yes you can pump water to create more head but it raises the operational cost of the system astronomically. It's only practical to supply coastal cities, and then only if there is no water that can feasibly be piped from elsewhere. In California's case that doesn't really solve the problem, which is that their agricultural economy is going to collapse.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
One of the great ironies.. the east coast has a good watershead and extremely fertile land, but we moved so large chunks of our agriculture to regions with crappy land.
People plant there because the land is cheap and the agricultural lobby has the local government wrapped around their finger for getting special concessions. It took massive public works (public money, private benefit) projects to produce much of the arable land. Then they had to go annex a bunch of seagull poop islands to fertilize the crap (but now moist) land.
Either way California *could* stand to be a little more self sustaining. It doesn't seem California is able to supply their own anything. 25% of their electricity is purchased from Arizona, and even then they still have rolling brownouts because they can't meet the demand.
You forgot to take 1 issue into your factoring ... food security. a country that goes under siege will starve unless they food security.
I think if we ( as a civilization ) get to that point which we see in the tv show star trek, then your conclusion is much more valid.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on this. I'm a Professional Engineer in Water Resources in Las Vegas. But, I'm not a Hollywood actor, or famous or anything. Maybe we should just defer to our leaders, like Mr. Shatner, to determine what course of action we should take.
From my experiences in LA: Clueless was documentary.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
From what I've read, The Alfalfa crops are about 1B gallons of water being moved to China.
This chart http://www.rollingalpha.com/wp... shows what crops are the thirstiest...
From: http://www.rollingalpha.com/20...
UPS Sucks
Nestle's claims they use 700 million gallons a year bottling. This is the equivalent of what two golf courses use. CA has over 1100 golf courses.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
If Washington State is anything like British Columbia (and considering they're right next door to each other, and Washington is south of the 49th), there are looming water problems; an extremely low snow pack which will likely mean water restrictions in some areas. Yes, it's rains a lot in the region, but the way that rain is "captured" is through snowfall.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are you being sarcastic or serious? Because that is exactly what happens right now. Read this for starters. California already gets a larger portion of water from the Colorado River than any other entity - including Mexico. Mexico gets less than 10%.
You are one of the few mentioning rainwater collection. Well done.
Average rainfall is California is around 10 inches per year. Google says California has 163,696 square miles of area.
1 furlong per fortnight = 0.000166309524 m/s. Carry the naught. [This is to appease Europeans, and hillbillies, alike]
3,800,000,000,000 cubic feet of water fall on California each year. 7.5 US gallons per cubic foot. 28 trillion gallons in total.
Total water usage, average to a per capita is around 2,000 gallons per person.
California population is around 37M.
28 T / (37M * 2K) = 425.
One year's California rainfall could service the entire state's water needs for 425 years.
Recovering one-quarter of one percent of the rain that falls on the state each year would provide enough water for everyone for the entire year.
I come here for the love
That's a fallacy.
The 2 "crops" that are taking the water:
Shut those 2 things down and water problem solved.
You forgot the delta smelt. Not exactly a crop since you can't harvest them, but a huge sink of water nonetheless.
a KirkStarter?
I'll be here all week.
Because I've got nowhere to go.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Get your water where the Colorado river reaches the sea
This is an interesting idea. What would happen if we diverted most of the Colorado river to a piping system to southern California?
I'm sure Mexico would be pissed, but so what?
You do realize that is exactly what happened, and the Colorado River doesn't reach the ocean most of the time now?
My remark was sort of a sarcastic trap.
http://voices.nationalgeograph...
Regardless, it's a been there/done that issue, that water is already gone.
Good luck convincing the PNW that you have the same future planned for the Columbia River.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
California does not grow "most of the food in the country." California does grow most of the Artichokes, Strawberries and Almonds, but those are hardly staples like corn and wheat, which are not grown in California in any significant amount.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
California doesn't even come close to "grow[ing] most of the food in the country". The account for 13.2% of the food grown in the US. While that is good for a single state, it's falls far shy of "most". In fact, California, while nearly 3 times the size of Illinois in area, only generates slightly over twice the food. That seems a lot less impressive.
Maybe we could dilute it with fresh water.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
free markets would mean ye who owns the land owns the water. not a bidding war after the government takes and distributes it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same