California mandates first-ever water restriction

Desalination facilities takes a lot of electrical power to operate, a whole lot of electrical power.

Solar energy is the most expensive form of generating electrical energy. May be why libs like solar energy because it's so expensive. The California coast line would be covered with solar panels to operate desalination facilities. Solar panel farms take up huge areas of land.

The only way a desalination facility would be cost effective if each facility had it's own nuclear power plant to power the desalination plant. I don't think libs would go for that.

Most of the cost of getting the Colorado River water to Southern California is the cost of electrical power to get it to those thirsty people. Water has to be pumped and that takes a lot of electrical power.

How many hundreds of billions of dollars would it cost to pump desalination water from the coast, over the Pacific range to the Central Valley ?

If it were cost effective, it would have already been done.

 

Short of an Indian rain dance...if natural sources of water dry up, mainly melting snow from the Sierra mountains...California will eventually use more groundwater than is being replenished..the Central Valley will turn into the Central desert.

Desalination will have to be part of the water portfolio at some point...it's not going to solve the entire issue of course, but they are finally investing some serious money into the issue. Even if it's just coastal cities that rely on desalination, even a 10% solution is better than relying on nature. The future of desalination are graphene membranes...one of the biggest costs in the current technology is maintaining high water pressure to filter ocean water through membranes...graphene can accomplish separating out the salt ions more efficiently and with less pressure.

All you have to do is look at Israel. They invested in desalination and now they have so much fresh water they are exporting it.

 

But hey, we're getting a $100billion bullet train!

 

Yes. I think we're pretty much in agreement. I just think the problem with irrigation isn't going to be solved by desalinization.

At one time, CA was considering trying to get OR and WA to sell the Columbia river to them, taking the water from the mouth and piping it under the ocean along the coast!

 

This has been a particularly bad year for snowfall in the Sierras. I don't know the long term climate forecast, but if this continues, the region is going to have to have a multiple solutions. Obviously desalination is not the magic pill, I think it has a place in the portfolio if nothing else than to handle the coastal cities. The Pacific ocean is an almost limitless source of water, right now the energy expenditure to convert it to fresh water is costly. Like any technology, if money is invested in it, efficiencies go up. The agricultural problem, well desalination might help converting the local brackish water with smaller units, but it's not the ultimate solution there. I suppose one alternative is to find another Central Valley environment somewhere else if this climate change thing is real. Canada may be North America's new breadbasket.

 

The population of Israel is about 1/5th of California and they don't have a coastal mountain range to deal with. They only have to deal with jihadist Muslims. But what Israel was able to accomplish turning deserts into green agricultural land is a accomplishment and under the Laws of Nature it gives them legal rights to Israel. The Palestinians had hundreds of years and they accomplished nothing, in 1948 Palestien was still one big freaking desert.

The entire California Central Valley feels like the Mojave Desert during the summer. I seem to remember when the southern end of the valley was called a desert at one time.

California has a problem, over population. Water desalination is only a bandaid, it doesn't cure the problem.

Would Obama object to a water pipeline from Washington state to California ? You still have to pump all of that water over the Siskiyou Mountains.

 

All the more reason to have more crops grown in areas that get ample rainfall. Northern Cali gets more rain, doesn't it? Midwest, East get ample rainfall.

 

I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost; not merely bailout the wealthiest.

What State could be worse off with better aqueducts and better roads.

 

If the price of water goes up for farmers, the cost of food goes up.

Just how it works.

Nobody would be punished by supply and demand concepts.

 

True Democrat response. Always adding expense instead of reducing costs.
Look. Here's reality. Your tax burden is heavy there, while your base to draw from is shrinking.There is a limited supply of water. You can:
A. reduce the population, deport the illegals and banish the criminal aliens B. eliminate the crops and move them to a different part of the country that gets more rain. Use logic. Gulf states would be a good choice for starters.

 

True response from the right who may prefer to raise funds on SympathyNet instead of EquityNet.

I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost; not merely bailout the wealthiest.

What State could be worse off with better aqueducts and better roads.

Capital intensive investments are what States can always be good for in modern times; or, does the right really really object to State Capitalism?

 

I'm all about capital investment, but that term is an oxymoron.

 

How much capital can real Persons invest versus the collective of the People of a State? Doesn't it really just depend on finding Persons who are willing to advance the Cause of Capitalism, instead of merely alleging to be for Capitalism.

 

Seems to me since potable water is essential for life, that if things continue to worsen, that the federal government will nationalize all water sources in the USA. There cannot be scenarios where one state has too much water while another is starving for water...

 

It's not just about rain. It's about rain, snow pack, location of water sources, the terrain and weather for particular crops, etc. I live in NorCal and we're having a horrible drought and current water supplies are in limited quantities. The upper and lower midwest is in a drought. The aquifer supplying water from Idaho to Texas is going dry. You cannot just move farms anywhere you desire. No one has the money to do such moves even if they made sense. Many of the crops are a 100 years old, like nut trees and wine grapes and olives, etc. and to start over from scratch is not possible. IMO if Americans continue to demand the current crops grown in the USA, then the only solution is to bring water to those areas. Sure some farming can start in other areas but only if they have affordable land and water and applicable weather, and, this would be great to expand farming across the USA!

 

Keep increasing the price of locally grown foods and this will encourage more imports. Why don't most people spend the bulk of their grocery shopping in the produce/fruit aisles today...because the costs are already too high for average people. Farmer's markets have great locally grown foods but because of the costs to the consumer only 5% of Americans shop at them. I bought a bag of grapes the other day and it was $14.00! One heirloom tomato might be $5. The talking heads wonder why more people today are not eating fresh fruit and vegetables...they can't afford it! Already the average distance that produce travels to our local markets is 1500 miles. IMO the higher the prices go the longer these distances will get. And it's not just inflation of foods...water is used in every business model so it's inflation of everything...

 

A. Stupid. 80% of CA water goes to agriculture. The entire population of CA only uses 20%. And, you know from other discussions that foreign labor is critical to these farmers and that nobody has proposed any way of deporting any substantial number of aliens.

B. Here, you're calling for big government! The local farmers (and others) want other solutions.

Note that CA has 17% of all land under agriculture in the US. An average state would have 2%. The problem is huge, and other areas are having droughts, too. Suggesting there be no infrastructure component is ridiculous.

 

Northern CA is where they grow almonds. They're cutting back production due to ... lack of water.

The Midwest??? Read the news. Drought has been even more serious in Midwest areas:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ongoing-coverage-of-historic-drought-in-us

Global climate change says this is exactly what will happen - that there will be ups and downs, but that the trend we see is what will get more pronounced.

 

Pssst... it isn't just right wingers that do that.

*Looking directly at you*

 

Capitalism is a form of government dictated and controlled by which the private sector.

The term "government capitalism" can not exist.

Infrastructure upgrades by way of social capital investments through taxation. That does not make it "government capitalism".

 

The costs are aligned with the cost of production.

Growing fruits and vegetables is far more expensive than processed foods coming out of a factory.

That is how the market works, costs are passed down.

So we are supposed to subsidize fresh food? What's the plan?

 

I don't have a point. I just stated a fact you can't seem to accept.

 

America rules, neaner neaner, accept that fact.

 

And if you continue to increase those costs the inflation will erode the markets.

Of course both processed foods and farm-grown foods use water so increased water prices basically effects everything.

I'm a farmer, and I know hundreds other farmers, from large to small, from selling wholesale to farmer's markets, and the risks are very high while the net profits are not that great. When everything is perfect, no labor issues, no water issues, no fungi or pest issues, no equipment issues, no market issues, great weather, average rainfall, etc. a decent living can be made. But, I can't remember the last time we had perfect anything.

In my business we already have pressure from imports, so anything that increases our costs, if and when we can pass these costs to the consumer, runs the risk of lower domestic demand and encourages more imports. This has been happening anyway for years now so significant cost increases due to water in this case will only exacerbate the trends...

 

Some light reading for you;
http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/1944Treaty.pdf