California Water Woes

[Desertrat]

From a WND link:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/flood/story/9650876p-10574233c.html

Water which is released from the Oroville reservoir is pumped from the Delta to southern Cali via the Delta-Mendota canal and the California Acqueduct. The fragility of the system is becoming more obvious...

Looks like some serious problems for prorities in the state's budgeting process.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Water is introduced into the delta from as far north as Lake Shasta, I believe. Southern California's reliance on this source has been a tricky political business for decades and never was especially wise from a long term water resources planning standpoint. But with the reduction of water availability from the Colorado River, weaning the southland off northern water is well nigh impossible now. Looking at the bigger picture, though, all of California, and the south especially, has been historically dependent on exotic and fragile plumbing, and that's not going to change.

[mactastic]

There are areas around me right now where you aren't allowed to build unless you tear down an existing place and get their water. There's been a moratorium in Cambria now for several years. No new building allowed. And it's only gonna get worse as the population grows.

Didn't I just read something about the city of LA finally getting around to restoring the Owens Valley? river?

[wwworry]

time for everyone to move back to the great lakes. They really are great.

[Frohickey]

If I were a terrorist, I would be extremely simple to really harm the Southern California economy.

Just go and destroy several water pipelines feeding Southern California and business there would go into a standstill. The only problem with doing this is that it would certainly piss off all the Hollywood liberal elites that are critical of the GWBush administration.

I doubt Islamic terrorists would do this, because it would turn away an ally.

On the other hand, this might just be right up some environmental terrorists alley.

[Taft]

time for everyone to move back to the great lakes. They really are great.

Ah, but they might not be great forever.

Link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0406130466jun13,1,6850178.story)

STANWOOD, Mich. -- Great Lakes states long have worried about Asian supertankers scooping up the region's coveted fresh water or thirsty western states siphoning it away in massive pipelines.

Instead, it's leaving in millions of tiny plastic bottles.

Huge pumps can draw as many as 400 gallons of water every minute from wells drilled by Nestle Waters North America Inc. in the rolling hills of north-central Michigan. The water, part of the complex hydrological system of the Great Lakes, fills the clear jugs and bottles of Nestle's Ice Mountain brand, found on supermarket shelves across the Midwest.

Late last year a trial court judge ordered Nestle to shut down its wells, finding that the wells are damaging the environment by lowering a nearby stream, lake and river that flow into Lake Michigan.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

Ignoring your flame-bait -- no, destroying a few pipelines would not bring Southern California to a standstill. The region has a number of huge reservoirs for just this very reason. The system is fragile, but it is not idiotic.

[Taft]

Also, I wonder if technology will eventually help all of these problems.

I read an article some time back by a person who thought future wars would be fought over water. She thought that because the amount of freshwater is limited, and we are consuming so much of it and polluting the rest, its only a matter of time before we ran out. She pointed to some interesting examples, as well. Las Vegas, for instance, was built in the middle of the desert. Though they use irrigation to get water, it is extremely costly in terms of water usage. Golf courses in the area are crazy-bad offenders in these regards.

But then I think about Isreal's desalination efforts and the moderate success they've had. Eventually, I'd imagine this will become cost effective. And if not, we can, as a society, always just throw money at the problem. With enough money, you could just pay to distill all of our water. Inefficient? Sure, but it'd work.

Taft

[Taft]

I doubt Islamic terrorists would do this, because it would turn away an ally.


Liberals = terrorist's ally.

Glad to see someone has finally seen the light and accepted all of Grand Wizard Coulter's gospel.

You want to start a flame war? You got it.

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

During the last extended drought, the City of Santa Barbara built a desalination plant at great expense. Then the next few winters were wet, so they decommissioned the plant. It's in mothballs now, awaiting the next drought I suppose. (Incidentally, the Santa Barbara area is not tied into the state water projects.)

In terms of problems with water usage and supply, everybody tends to think of the arid West, but in reality, the wetter parts of the country can run short too. I lived through one severe drought in the Northeast, where I grew up, when the reservoirs ran dry and we weren't allowed to water the lawn. (Some people had the dead grass spray-painted green!) Last year was also critically dry in the Northeast, IIRC.

Water is the next critical world-wide shortage item, after oil.

[Ugg]

Not sure where you get your water from 'Rat, but doesn't the Ogalala aquifer supply most of Texas, OK and surrounding states? I'm pretty sure that it is in great danger from depletion as well. While it may not be as dramatic as CA's water crisis, it is serious in its own right.

Up here in Humboldt County there is rarely a serious shortage of water and due to a number of pulp mills shutting down, there is unused capacity of sorts. A company floated a plan to pump the excess into huge bags and tow it to SoCal. Unfortunately, due to NAFTA and WTO rules it would essentially mean local loss of control of the water. In other words, once you open the floodgates you can't close 'em. So, the local authorities chose not to allow the company to do this even though it meant a loss of jobs and revenue. That is one of the biggest threats to water around the world, the loss of local control as water works are being sold to multinationals like Thames water works.

On a more global note, water shortages are not limited to the arid parts of North America. The BBC has an article highlighting last year's UN conference in Kobe, JP. The article is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2692253.stm)

It's been said that water is one of the main reasons that Israel is not interested in providing Palestinian autonomy. Water has the potential to be the next oil crisis and you can bet your booties that there will be the watery equivalent of OPEC before long.

[Desertrat]

IJ, unless you're talking about reservoirs of some one-million acre-feet or larger, they're just--literally--a drop in the bucket.

One acre-foot = 325, 851 gallons.

The capability of flow of the California Acqueduct is some 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). One cfs = 449 gallons per minute.

Ugg, the Oglala (or Ogalallah) Aquifer supplies the great Plains from up in Nebraska (possibly further north) on down through the Texas Panhandle. It's pretty well played out by near Odessa. The recharge is from seepage from the west. It's covered by a well-nigh impervious formation, so there's no recharge from rainfall. It's being mined, just as oil or gold. In the heavily irrigated areas, the water table can drop as much as ten feet per year, although with trickle irrigation replacing flood or sprinkler, it's now much less.

Water wars? Yeah, probable, in the mid-East; check where are the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates. There are water-squabbles between Atlanta, Chattanooga and Birmingham over the Tennessee River; Florida, Alabama and Georgia are in a constant turmoil over the Chattahoochee/Appalachicola (the name changes at the Florida border).

Were terrorists to take out the Tehachapi Pump Station, and/or a pump station on the All-American Canal, the LA Basin would be in deep doo-doo.

Texas is overloading its demands on its various rivers, and San Antonio is in trouble with competition for groundwater from farming. El Paso/Juarez is getting ready to spend a ton of money for that couple of million or so people.

My own water? Underflow of Terlingua Creek, from its saturated sands/gravels. I dug my well with my backhoe. From a household and home-garden standpoint, I have unlimited water.

I worked for eleven years in the water resource development business. In the late '60s I was fortunate to work with Harvey Banks and some of his people in San Francisco. Harvey had been head of the Cal. DWR during the development phase of the Cal. Water Project. In '69 I got a guided tour of the entire project, from Oroville to LA. It's one of the world's greatest engineering feats. I did the design and cost estimating for a similar project in Texas, but the pumping costs made it way too prohibitive to ever build. In the world of water, "Uphill is bad."

'Rat

[wwworry]

Ah, but they might not be great forever.


One thing I like about the great lakes is
To this end, the Council [of Great Lake's Governors] assists the Governors in coordinating activities under the Great Lakes Charter of 1985, a voluntary agreement through which the Great Lakes States and Provinces cooperatively manage the waters of the Great Lakes. The Council also coordinates the authority granted to the Governors under the U.S. Federal Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. This Act requires the Governors’ unanimous approval on any proposed out-of-basin diversion or export of water from the Great Lakes Basin.

am I trolling?

[Frohickey]

Ignoring your flame-bait -- no, destroying a few pipelines would not bring Southern California to a standstill. The region has a number of huge reservoirs for just this very reason. The system is fragile, but it is not idiotic.

How long before the huge reservoirs are empty?
Think of the reservoirs as gas tanks, and the pipelines as the gas pump that is connected directly to the gas refinery that is connected directed to an oil well. (Bad analogy, I know.)

As to the troll-bait equating liberals to supporters of terrorists, if it isn't true, why not just ignore it. :p

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, unless you're talking about reservoirs of some one-million acre-feet or larger, they're just--literally--a drop in the bucket.

Not really, no. Local (Southern California) water storage capacity for the SWP is around a half million acre feet, and this is only one of the three large aqueduct and reservoir systems serving the region.

[IJ Reilly]

How long before the huge reservoirs are empty?

The City of Los Angeles (Owens Valley) system was designed to hold one year's worth of supply. The others, I don't know for a fact.

[krimson]

if more people eat from the same roach coach i ate at today, there's no way it'll last more than 6 months. :p

[Taft]

As to the troll-bait equating liberals to supporters of terrorists, if it isn't true, why not just ignore it. :p

Tricky question. Let's say there was a vicious voice on the left who was smearing figures on the right, and no-one was speaking out against what he was saying. How popular would you let this person get before you said, "enough!" How far do you let people go before the public needs a reminder that they aren't necessarily telling it to you straight?

I'd love to just ignore every ignoramous who spouts half-truths in pithy format to unsuspecting listeners. Problem is, those unsuspecting listeners might just get the wrong idea after being drilled by those pithy comments for the umpteenth time.

When should a person start defending their beliefs rather than just let it go? (These are serious questions, BTW, which I thought might be appropriate to discuss in this forum. Voltron comes to mind...)

Taft

[Frohickey]

The City of Los Angeles (Owens Valley) system was designed to hold one year's worth of supply. The others, I don't know for a fact.

One year's worth of supply? For when? Back in the 50s demand?

[mactastic]

I doubt Islamic terrorists would do this, because it would turn away an ally.


If you think I'm an ally of Islamic terrorists, then there is no point in further discussion. Goodbye.

[IJ Reilly]

One year's worth of supply? For when? Back in the 50s demand?

Probably the 1930s, when it was more or less completed. But again, this was also before the construction of either the State Water Project or the Colorado River Aqueduct. I'd guess it's quite a bit less than a year now, but then again, it would be pretty difficult to shut down any one of these systems for more than a few months, let alone, all of them. Back in the mid-20s ranchers in the Owens Valley tried pretty hard to shut down that aqueduct, but couldn't manage more than few breaks that were quickly repaired.

[mactastic]

Yeah here it is. LA will finally make some amends for what they've taken over the years...

L.A. soon may atone to valley it left high and dry (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001945876_river03.html)
Looking out from the banks of the river that once ran through the rugged Owens Valley beside the Sierra Nevada, Mike Prather sees only stumps, weeds and dried mud.
The water is long gone. It's been that way for nearly a century, ever since Los Angeles began quenching its insatiable thirst by buying nearly all the land and building what some folks in Big Pine bitterly call "the big straw," the 233-mile aqueduct that swiped the local water supply and gave the metropolis its life.

The Owens River was the first casualty of that monumental engineering feat, sucked dry and all but left for dead.

Until now.

Prather, an environmental activist in the Owens Valley, no longer comes to the river to lament its loss. He comes to savor a remarkable new plot twist in the ceaseless water wars of the West: Los Angeles soon may have no choice but to restore the river's old flow.

"There's a lot of people here who feel that this battle was lost long ago," Prather said. "They completely accept the omnipotence of L.A. and think it's always going to get whatever water it wants, no matter what you do. But I think we're about to show them that's not true."

To revive the river, which curves for more than 60 miles through the Owens Valley, Los Angeles would have to modify the aqueduct and give up millions of gallons of precious water, an amount equivalent to what it sends annually to about 40,000 families in the city.

That step would create an environmental-restoration project like none other in the West, launched as the arid region is urbanizing at dizzying speed and getting ever more desperate for new water sources.

For residents in the valley, it would also be a historic milestone, a sign that Los Angeles is at last atoning for what they regard as its original sin.

[Frohickey]

Yeah here it is. LA will finally make some amends for what they've taken over the years...

L.A. soon may atone to valley it left high and dry (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001945876_river03.html)

How many residents live in the Los Angeles basin compared to how many residents live in the Owens Valley?

[wwworry]

Forget it, Jake. It's ...

[IJ Reilly]

How many residents live in the Los Angeles basin compared to how many residents live in the Owens Valley?

You mean now, or in 1904?

[mactastic]

Southern California is a perfect example of the reason watersheds should dictate regional authority areas rather than the silly arbitrary lines humans draw on a map.

[Frohickey]

You mean now, or in 1904?

Either one.

[IJ Reilly]

Either one.

Okay, in 1904 the Owens Valley was a prosperous and growing agricultural area with plenty of water resources to continue to grow and develop and the City of Los Angeles was a modest-sized but rapidly growing city which had outstripped it resources. After the city was done with the Owens Valley, it was returned to desert conditions, the family farms dried up and blew away, and the communities virtually ceased to exist.

[Frohickey]

Okay, in 1904 the Owens Valley was a prosperous and growing agricultural area with plenty of water resources to continue to grow and develop and the City of Los Angeles was a modest-sized but rapidly growing city which had outstripped it resources. After the city was done with the Owens Valley, it was returned to desert conditions, the family farms dried up and blew away, and the communities virtually ceased to exist.

Was property and water rights bought by the City of Los Angeles and sold by the property owners?
Was there any coercion and fraud perpetrated by the buyers for the City of Los Angeles in the process of purchasing the property and property rights from the Owens Valley property owners?
Were there any legal requirements that the buyers for the City of Los Angeles to disclose the intended use of the purchase?

Were the family farms that dried up include water rights that were not sold to the City of Los Angeles?
Did the communities that ceased to exist include water rights that were not sold to the City of Los Angeles?

[IJ Reilly]

The Owens Valley affair was characterized coercion, secrecy, deception, conflicts of interest and double-dealing. No shortage of sordid activity there, and no shortage of people hurt who had no control over their own fates. People went to jail, and the legal battles continued literally for generations. I'd suggest you read a good book on this subject, rather than ask me to explain the entire thing to you. I can recommend a book or two, if you're interested in reading about it. I'm sure you'd be especially interested to discover how the powers of the federal government were employed to making the entire thing possible.

[diamond geezer]

I wont suggest that i know much about Californian geography, having only spent 3 days in downtown LA in the late eighties (where i was subjected to monsoon rain, power cuts, hotel break-ins (during the power cut) and a embarrassing lack of knowledge on how american toilets flush (the water raises before lowering!!), so I don't know where all the places are that you guys are talking about.

I thought that the following link may be of interest.

link (http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/living/science/8897415.htm?1c)

As he flew high above the snowy Sierra Nevada this spring, atmospheric scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan saw confirmation of what he had both hoped and feared to see: Big, dark storm clouds that were not producing any rain.

Air pollution appears to be altering rainfall patterns in the Sierra and around the world, said Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla.

It is the latest fallout from an exploding human population that over the past half-century has pushed untold tons of smog, soot and ash into the atmosphere, he said Thursday at the nation's first state-sponsored global warming research program.

The vast sprawl of Los Angeles, with its millions of cars pumping greenhouse gases into the air, are in effect driving away the very rainfall its population needs to survive as pollution forces rain to fall outside the state. Instead of accumulating as snow in California's Sierra, a smaller amount lands in neighboring Nevada.

Ramanathan co-led a 1999 study that reported the existence of a vast "brown cloud" of pollution, dust and chemicals that he believes is slowing solar evaporation from the oceans and leading to a net reduction in world rainfall.

It is part of a band of pollution encircling the globe, helping produce a 10 percent to 20 percent reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth over the past 50 years. The phenomenon cools the earth's surface but heats the middle atmosphere.

Minuscule flecks of black carbon make up perhaps only 10 percent of the pollution cloud but play a dominant role in altering the way the atmosphere behaves, Ramanathan said.

The dark particles absorb solar radiation and scatter sunlight, helping produce that characteristic haze that today coats not only cities such as Los Angeles but once-pristine areas such as Yosemite National Park downwind.

They also form the nuclei that attract cloud moisture into water droplets. Clouds are getting thicker and darker because they retain more moisture, adding to the darkening effect on the earth below.

When enough moisture accumulates around natural dust particles -- clouds of which have been circling the globe for eons -- the droplets fall as rain. But Ramanathan said the carbon specks are often too small to produce drops big enough to hit the ground.

He was among scientists reporting the first results from the California Energy Commission's Climate Change Center. Researchers affiliated with the center are only beginning to develop computer models that can predict trends down to the regional level, a scale small enough to help state policy-makers.
So far, their projections do not provide much good news.
Levels of carbon dioxide will double from historical levels by mid-century, pushing up temperatures across the state, particularly inland. The greatest increase will be at the highest altitudes -- the mountains that hold the snow pack containing more than a third of California's drinking and irrigation water.

Warmer water spilling into the ocean and more intense wind-driven waves pounding the Northern California coast could alter the nutrient-rich coastal waters and affect the area's sea life, said Lisa C. Sloan of the Climate Change and Impacts Laboratory at UC Santa Cruz.

Precipitation is likely to increase in the northern third of the state, her models show, transforming grasslands to scrubland and oak woodlands to conifer forests. But rainfall is likely to decrease in Southern California, where it is needed most, Sloan said. "This is where the population is, and this is where the giant sucking sound for the water is."

The number of annual heat waves -- three consecutive days of high temperatures -- doubled for Los Angeles and quadrupled for San Francisco under her models, with accompanying health problems from heat, disease, ozone and asthma.

An even more pessimistic model by Norm Miller of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory predicts that Los Angeles heat waves could increase three- to six-fold, and double in Sacramento. His modeling shows an even greater loss in crucial Sierra snow.

All this comes as California's population is predicted to keep growing, adding to the demand for increasingly scarce water.
Jay Lund, an environmental engineer at UC Davis, went so far as to compare California to the mythical Tantalus, doomed to a thirsty eternity in which rising water threatened to drown him, only to recede out of reach each time he stooped to drink.

His computer model, though still rudimentary, incorporates more than a million research variables and takes seven days to run a given set of projections.

He concluded that adapting to climate change will cost California billions of dollars, cause severe dislocations particularly for agriculture and the state's water resources, but nonetheless is affordable for a state with a gross annual state product well over $1 trillion.

"It's not going to cause the collapse of civilization in California," Lund said. "This adaptation, however, will be very challenging."

So the question is, who is being the more paranoid. Those who talk of terrorist attacks on the water supply or those who talk of pollution?

Either way, Bush's policies promote both terrorism and pollution.

you reap what you sow.

[Desertrat]

Sorry, diamond geezer, but Bush has only been on the national scene for 3.5 years. The truly-serious air-pollution problem has been around since the industrial boom of the 1950s.

Regardless, compared to the smog of the 1960s, the LA Basin is cleaner on a per-capita basis than in the past. The problem is one of too many people in too-small an area. The 1999 study may be correct, but it would be more meaningful had there been a comparative study in 1969. That is, things are bad now, but they were worse then. You take any improvement you can get.

I've seen the same sort of changes in the amount of smog in Houston, as well. 35 years back, it was as bad as LA.

Mexico City was (and is) worse than either. Same for other megalopolis-type cities around the world.

In the FWIW department, particulate matter in the air increases both rainfall and/or fog. E.g., as the steel mills developed at Gary, Indiana, the rainfall down-prevailing-wind doubled, in a 50-mile long ellipsoid. E.g., with the decrease of the use of coal in England, the frequency and density of the famous fogs so beloved of the movies also dramatically declined. (This has led to more sunny days; also, lower low temperatures at night and warmer high temperatures at mid-day. "It's in the book.")

'Rat

[diamond geezer]

Sorry, diamond geezer, but Bush has only been on the national scene for 3.5 years. The truly-serious air-pollution problem has been around since the industrial boom of the 1950s.


No need to be sorry Rat, I do realise that pollution has been around before Mad-Dog Bush came to power.

It's just that he's been weakening the environmental laws to suit his big business masters.

[Frohickey]

No need to be sorry Rat, I do realise that pollution has been around before Mad-Dog Bush came to power.

It's just that he's been weakening the environmental laws to suit his big business masters.

What weakening of environmental laws?

You mean the stealth 2 seconds before midnight lowering of the arsenic level that Bill Clinton signed to make an executive order landmine for the incoming president?

You mean the halt of trail and road improvements in wilderness areas so that people with difficulty moving around like disabled people cannot go and enjoy the national parks and forests that they paid for with their taxes?

You mean the change in forest thinning rules that encourage business to go in and clean up and remove some fuels from the forest floor so that the forests don't go up in smoke, like that year or two when Clinton was in office?

[Desertrat]

Arrghhh! BAck to water, for a moment.

Note that the original article mentioned nearly a half-billion green ones for maintenance of the Delta levees--and that's needed in a relatively short time period.

Other states are in the same fix: A general shortage of funding, and a large need for improvements in water supply infrastructure--as well as pollution control for effluent discharges.

We've boxed ourselves in with a large allocation on human services social spending, to the detriment of physical infrastructure.

All this, at a time when the prices of construction materials, construction equipment and fuels have risen dramatically.

In the US, the average water consumption inside the home is around 40 gallons per person per day. However, even in non-industrial areas the gross usage for lawns, swimming pools and car washes will kick this number up to and above 400 gallons per person per day.

Basically, we don't pay enough for the water we buy...

it's ironic to compare the price of a pint of water of the "frou-frou" variety with the quite-common household rate of $3/1,000 gallons. :)

'Rat

[diamond geezer]

What weakening of environmental laws?


Polluter support for Bush paying off big
May*03,*2004:*A new report sheds light on how corporate contributions to the Bush administration are paying off big for polluters. Since 1999, 30 power companies that own the nation's dirtiest power plants have raised $6.6 million for President Bush and the Republican National Committee, according to an analysis by Public Citizen. Executives at 10 of these utilities raised at least $100,000 or $200,000 each, earning them the honor of being named to the president's list of "pioneers" or "rangers," respectively. These top fundraisers for the president include executives at FirstEnergy Corp. ($865,877), Southern Co. ($807,062), TXU ($754,898), Dominion ($679,105), Centerpoint (formerly Reliant) Energy ($539,900), Cinergy Corp ($431,722), Exelon ($404,856), Edison Electric Institute ($348,750), Dynergy Inc. ($311,382) and Edison International ($192,291). Collectively, these top 10 industry fundraisers have raised $1.5 million over the last 5 years. Public Citizen's report draws a connection between this corporate gift-giving and political paybacks in the form of the administration's weakening changes to the Clean Air Act that benefit the utility industry.


"If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently bad -- I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that."
-Interior Department Assistant Secretary Craig Manson, appointed by President Bush to position overseeing the Endangered Species Act, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 12, 2003

We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
-President Bush, Sept. 23, 2002, Trenton, New Jersey, speech

And talking about water:
The Bush Record

Overwhelming majorities in Congress approved the original Clean Water Act, and it has survived some six presidential administrations without major changes to its protections, until now. Now, the Bush Administration is planning or has already taken steps to:


Open waters off Texas, California, and Florida to oil drilling, over those States' objections;


Stall a multibillion-dollar effort to restore the Florida Everglades;


Refuse to protect federal water rights needed to support wilderness areas, National wildlife refuges, and endangered species like Pacific salmon; and


Cut the budget for sewage plants and stormwater controls by $500 million, from $1,350 million in FY2002 to $800 million in FY2004 - the largest cut of any EPA program.

Benefactors of the Administration's weak Clean Water Act policies are mining companies, factory farms, developers, chemical companies, pulp and paper companies, and the oil industry. These industries are seeking to narrow the scope or create exemptions from current requirements to legalize their pollution discharges.

President Bush quickly established a reputation for retreating from the national commitment to clean water. On Inauguration Day, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a moratorium on proposed rules for controlling discharges of raw sewage from sewage collection systems. Shortly thereafter, EPA announced it would delay the implementation of the revised arsenic standard allowed for drinking water. Bush continues to weaken Clean Water Act protections by proposing measures that will result in:


Water Pollution from Toxic Runoff. Toxic runoff from "non-point" source pollution - such as pesticides and fertilizers, oil, sediments, debris, and other hazardous waste generated by run-off from farms, logging projects and city streets - is the primary source of water pollution in the United States. Within six months of entering office, Bush reversed a Clinton Administration regulation requiring states to comply with the Clean Water Act for all pollution sources, including "non-point" sources. Instead, EPA announced that it was going to "redesign" the program extensively, to rely more heavily upon "voluntary" compliance and "cooperation" from regulated industry, and on regulation by state authorities, despite their failure to enforce water quality standards for 30 years.


Loss of wetlands. The nation's isolated waters - wetlands, streams, and ponds - are vital for flood control, filtering pollutants from our waters, and providing habitat for wildlife, as well as for commercial fishing and shellfishing, among many other uses. In January 2001, the Supreme Court's decision known as SWANCC overturned protections for certain isolated waters used by migratory bird species. In October 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a new policy reversing the "no net loss" of wetlands policy adopted by the first President Bush. The Administration later announced its intent to eliminate Clean Water Act protections for all isolated waters, going far beyond the bounds of the Supreme Court's decision in SWANCC. The Bush proposal removes the only effective legal protection for 20 million acres of wetlands, streams, and ponds, and has the potential to destroy the natural areas that protect our homes from flooding, filter our water, replenish our groundwater supplies, and serve as vital habitat for wildlife.


Increased mining and industrial waste. A longstanding Clean Water Act provision prohibits the Corps from allowing industrial wastes to bury and destroy U.S. waters. Waste dumping from coal mining alone has buried at least seven hundred perennial and intermittent streams in Appalachia. The Bush Administration, driven by a desire to legalize discharges from mountaintop-removal mining of coal, redefined "fill" to allow industries to discharge these wastes into streambeds. The rule change, which also permits dumping of hardrock mining waste, construction and demolition debris, and other solid industrial wastes into streams, puts virtually all of the nation's waters at risk by allowing the Corps to issue permits to dump any kind of industrial waste into streams and wetlands in any part of the country.


Weakened Controls on Factory Farms. Factory farms - giant livestock farms that can house hundreds of thousands of animals - generate nearly 2.7 trillion pounds of waste each year. The disposal practice of over-applying waste on land creates contaminated run-off that poses a threat to waterways and drinking water sources. According to the EPA, hog, chicken and cattle wastes contaminate 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and groundwater in 17 states. Instead of strengthening rules and updating technology standards to tighten water pollution controls, the Bush Administration, at the behest of the agribusiness industry, issued new rules that exempt factory farm owners from liability for contaminating waterways and allow them to craft their own permit conditions,


Weak Enforcement of Clean Water Laws. Exacerbating the damage done by Bush's weak Clean Water Act policies is the Administration's pattern of under-enforcement of current water protection laws. A recent internal EPA study, revealed in the Washington Post, found that about a quarter of the nation's largest industrial plants and water treatment facilities are in serious violation of Clean Water Act standards at any one time, yet only a small fraction of them face formal enforcement actions. Inadequate enforcement of the Clean Water Act in the Everglades has contributed to a loss of 880 acres of wetlands each year. Between FY2001 and FY2003, the Bush Administration eliminated about 200 key compliance monitoring and civil enforcement positions through a combination of leaving vacancies unfilled and reassigning personnel.

How President Bush Misleads the Public

Recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, President Bush proclaimed October 18, 2002 through October 17, 2003, "The Year of Clean Water." Ironically, his aggressive policy to ensure polluters' "right" to pollute violates the Clean Water Act's historic premise that no one may pollute public water resources. Proclaiming that the Act "will be an important mainstay and tool for further progress," President Bush has misled the public, proclaiming his intent to protect our waterways and drinking water while instead undermining essential aspects of the Clean Water Act

In June 2003, the EPA released a "Draft Report on the Environment," which stated, "94% of the population served by community water systems were served by systems that met all health-based standards." Internal agency documents, however, show that EPA audits for at least five years have suggested that the percentage of the population with safe drinking water is much lower - 79 to 84% in 2002 - which means that an additional 30 million Americans are at potential risk. The EPA Inspector General is currently investigating whether the agency deliberately misled the public by overstating the purity of the nation's drinking water.

[Desertrat]

I'm not at all trying to say the comments about clean water are all wrong. However, not all of them are correct nor is the full picture presented.

As a for instance, the issue of oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts: In the Gulf of Mexico where there are numerous rigs, the best fishing is in their vicinity. A drilling rig creates new habitat; about an acre per hundred feet of depth. An entire new food chain begins with a very short period after placement.

Arsenic: The laboratory tests are not inexpensive. The law would have required this testing, even in areas where the groundwater has no arsenic and never has had. Most of the lobbying against implementation of the rules has come from small towns or water districts in areas without arsenic in the groundwater. (These tests are ongoing, not one-time.)

Voluntary compliance: It has been found that by not having automatic penalties for violations of rules for discharge, industries both report and correct more quickly. If the penalties are automatic, the industries in some instances will try to hide mistakes and call in the lawyers for the usual obfuscation ("It isn't really a violation." or "We're not the source." etc.).

I don't doubt that some of the loosenings are detrimental to some extent. However, it's not common for changes to work their way up through the bureacracy of EPA if they're as bad as spun in this listing.

As an example of the difficulty of deciding "good" and "bad" in water quality: The port of Corpus Christi, Texas, always has a problem when it's time to dredge the channel and the inner harbor. The mud contains Cesium; it's 50% over the EPA limit in terms of parts per million. So, after the public notices come out about a dredging effort, the environmentalists come out in droves to protest. One problem: This is local soil which has washed into the harbor. The soil of Nueces County ALL contains Cesium, 50% over the EPA limit.

I bring this up not as a whitewash of all changes, but to point out the difficulty of assessing commentaries about regulatory changes.

'Rat

[Voltron]

What happens to the water supply when you switch to hydro burning vehicles? These same environmentalists want us to switch our vehicles from fuel we don't drink to water we do drink.

[skunk]

What happens to the water supply when you switch to hydro burning vehicles? These same environmentalists want us to switch our vehicles from fuel we don't drink to water we do drink.
Simple: it takes about 800 gallons of water to refine 160 gallons of gas. Let alone the water use in crude production.

[IJ Reilly]

As a for instance, the issue of oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts: In the Gulf of Mexico where there are numerous rigs, the best fishing is in their vicinity. A drilling rig creates new habitat; about an acre per hundred feet of depth. An entire new food chain begins with a very short period after placement.

As I think any biologist will tell you, "creating new habitat" isn't necessarily a good thing. You could create plenty of "new habitat" by leaving piles of rotting garbage in vacant lots -- habitat for rats and cockroaches.

[mactastic]

Just because the fishing is good doesn't mean the ecosystem is normal or healthy.

[Desertrat]

IJ, you're really reaching, there...

mac, the fishing is good because of the creation of an entire food chain. Barnacles and mosses come first; then little critters and fish that feed on those--and then on up to the ling and king mackeral and such.

According to the marine biologists who have studied offshore rigs--among other studies, of course--any "structure" is a Good Thing. Offshore rigs, old ships, bundled tires, surplus army tanks...They all get covered with some sort of permanent growies and the rest, as is said, is history.

I'll repeat: I spent four years working with biologists of various specialties, who worked for USF&WS, Texas Parks & Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries, the Marine Science Institute at Port Aransas...If the rigs are inherently harmful, I'd have heard.

Sure, there is the hazard of spills. But, that hazard (obviously) exists with tankers. And, there is an unending natural seepage of crude--albeit minor, in the grand scheme of things--in the Gulf of Mexico and off California's coast. Regardless of all that, the objections about drilling mud are unfounded; it's contained on board the rig, not dumped into the oceans.

Now, in places like the Alaskan coast, the cold temperatures preclude any rapid recovery after a spill. But, the damage is nowhere near permanent. In warmer waters, recovery is fairly swift. Always remember we did have WW II. U-Boats sank over a hundred oil and refined products tankers in the Gulf of Mexcio and along the Atlantic coast. Within a few years, it was ancient history, not current problems.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Sure and if it's a food chain that's supposed to be there, fine. There are times when non-native species are invited in by our actions however. I didn't mean that to be a blanket statement that habitat creation is always bad.

Offshore rigs don't necessarily bother me per se. I do, however, object to them in near-shore areas. Too close to shore to do anything if there is a spill, and their visual impact on the area is objectionable. Why spoil the view of all those rich GOP supporters with coastside mansions eh? :D

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, you're really reaching, there...

Nope. I live in offshore oil platform country, and these questions are very much part of the debate. Making more fish may spell happiness for fishermen, but it doesn't necessarily make for good ocean habitat management. This issue came up recently when Arco wanted to abandon some rigs in place instead hauling them off, as they'd originally committed to do when they were installed. The oil company lost that argument and had to restore the ocean floor, not create artificial habitat.

[adamjay]

just got back from spending a week in LA... i am SO glad i dont live there.
i really feel bad for those born in LA, its hard to leave home.. and its hard to stay when everone in the world wants to move to the city of your birth.
gas was $2.65 a gallon... and now this water issue? good thing you guys elected the governator.

[Neserk]

just got back from spending a week in LA... i am SO glad i dont live there.
i really feel bad for those born in LA, its hard to leave home.. and its hard to stay when everone in the world wants to move to the city of your birth.
gas was $2.65 a gallon... and now this water issue? good thing you guys elected the governator.


LOL... too funny. I love this area. I'm about 45 minutes East of Los Angeles. Indianapolis, OTOH, is the ugliest place I've ever had the misfortune to set eyes on :p My sister and her husband live there and I hated from the first time I went :eek:

To each their own, I guess!

[Desertrat]

I vaguely recall that ARCO platform argument, but what little I read gave me the impression is was mostly political, with "the environment" used as an excuse. I think Greenpeace was the lead arguer, and I couldn't really buy into their reasoning. (I'm not adamant about that; it was a good while back.) However, if a rig is left in place, it shouldn't be left as a hazard to navigation, and a VLT draws some 90 feet when loaded.

Question: How could a non-native food-chain develop? Whence cometh the "wetbacks"? The barnacles are local, the algae and mosses are local, and the fish are already in the general area. It's not the same sort of deal as in the Delta-Mendota Canal or in the Great Lakes, with Asiatic Clams and suchlike.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Arco wanted to tip the rigs over in place, to save themselves the expense of scrapping them out. IIRC, the principal arguers against permitting this were biologists from the National Park Service, which operates the Channel Islands National Park, and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The California Coastal Commission was probably also involved, as well as local environmental groups. It's been a few years, so I don't recall all of the details.

[Desertrat]

Hokay. The location I vaguely remember was maybe the North Sea.

I'd worry more about some physical hazard from "tipping in place", unless it was really deep water.

While I can understand the offense to one's sense of aesthetics from various activities, I'm still stuck with looking at societal needs. Oil/gas drilling; coal
/iron/aluminum/copper mining: I just don't see how people of any country or economic status can maintain or improve their circumstances without these. To me, it's not so much whether these things are done; it's how they are done that matters. Minimize negative impacts on the environment, but realize we can't achieve perfection.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Simple: it takes about 800 gallons of water to refine 160 gallons of gas. Let alone the water use in crude production.

On a different thread, we have already talked about what it would take to switch to using hydrogen as a fuel.
The various drawbacks are:
1) Hydrogen's energy density is several times lower than gasoline, requiring a larger volume of space for the same amount of energy as provided by gasoline
2) Hydrogen does not occur freely in nature, and requires the expenditure of energy in order to make into a form usable for combustion. Net energy is lost in the production of hydrogen. Gasoline on the other hand, when made from crude oil is a net energy gain from the crude oil starting material.

[zimv20]

Gasoline on the other hand, when made from crude oil is a net energy gain from the crude oil starting material.
and which law of thermodynamics are we violating here?

[Frohickey]

Sure and if it's a food chain that's supposed to be there, fine. There are times when non-native species are invited in by our actions however. I didn't mean that to be a blanket statement that habitat creation is always bad.

Offshore rigs don't necessarily bother me per se. I do, however, object to them in near-shore areas. Too close to shore to do anything if there is a spill, and their visual impact on the area is objectionable. Why spoil the view of all those rich GOP supporters with coastside mansions eh? :D

I don't think Barbra Streisand is a rich GOP supporter. :p

[Frohickey]

While I can understand the offense to one's sense of aesthetics from various activities, I'm still stuck with looking at societal needs. Oil/gas drilling; coal
/iron/aluminum/copper mining: I just don't see how people of any country or economic status can maintain or improve their circumstances without these. To me, it's not so much whether these things are done; it's how they are done that matters. Minimize negative impacts on the environment, but realize we can't achieve perfection.

'Rat

Maybe that is the crux of the issue that you are missing.

Maybe these people don't want this country to maintain and improve their economic status and circumstances. I guess these people want to have the poor stay poor (and the rich to go poor).

[Frohickey]

and which law of thermodynamics are we violating here?

None.

In electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, you are using electrical energy to make hydrogen and oxygen. There are inefficiencies in the system and that would require an influx of energy to overcome this, and make a system that is making hydrogen/oxygen on a regular basis. Also, you would always have to add additional energy into the system, energy that is not present in your output.

(Meaning, you cannot make hydrogen and oxygen from splitting water using the hydrogen and oxygen you made before, and have a net excess for use elsewhere.)

In the fractional distillation of crude oil, there is a net excess for use in automobiles, etc. After crude oil is discovered (natural gas, oil fired power plants to drive the computers, copiers, conference rooms, etc, gasoline to visit the site), and extracted (generators to drive the pumps, fuel for transportation to the refinery, etc), and refined (fuel to run the refinery), there is enough energy content in the products to both drive further discovery/extraction/refining, as well as automobile and other uses.

You can approach a group of businessmen and tell them that you want to exchange a billion barrels of crude oil for a smaller amount of refined products, and you will probably be exposed to some wheeling and dealing as to what that smaller amount should be.

Approach a group of businessmen and tell them that you want to exchange a billion gallons of water for a smaller amount of hydrogen/oxygen, and you will not have any takers. How much gravitational (potential energy) energy would you have to give water in order to make electrolysis of water self-sustaining? You will get more energy by not using the electricity to make hydrogen in the first place.

Now, if, genetic scientists were able to make a genetically-modified kelp plant that were able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, then we might have a chance at a hydrogen economy.

I envision a vast sea of genetically-modified kelp farms, with the kelp trapping hydrogen and oxygen in air sacs, which float up to the surface when they are full, and a fleet of giant Seadoos, powered by hydrogen, going out and harvesting these air sacs. If the scientists are smart, the air sac material would be edible, with enough soy sauce and wasabi. :D :p :D

[Desertrat]

Mea culpa, Frohickey.

I mean, like, wow, why don't we just go to horse and buggy, and farm with horses/mules/oxen?

I mean, like who needs cell phones and Internet and vaccines?

All this industrial stuff, like ships and trains and semis and airplanes and all that! Who needs'em?

What I wanna know is who's gonna choose the several billion who'll die?

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Mea culpa, Frohickey.

What I wanna know is who's gonna choose the several billion who'll die?

'Rat

Don't ask me. I'm not the one floating these hare-brained ideas. I bet that you can ask various environmental groups like Greenpeace and Sierra Club, and they can come up with a list for you. :p

[zimv20]

In the fractional distillation of crude oil, there is a net excess for use in automobiles, etc. After crude oil is discovered (natural gas, oil fired power plants to drive the computers, copiers, conference rooms, etc, gasoline to visit the site), and extracted (generators to drive the pumps, fuel for transportation to the refinery, etc), and refined (fuel to run the refinery), there is enough energy content in the products to both drive further discovery/extraction/refining, as well as automobile and other uses.
do you mean to say that the process creates more net energy than is used in the process?

[Frohickey]

do you mean to say that the process creates more net energy than is used in the process?

Yes.
I thought I did say that and I had to say it in the long-winded way. :p

[zimv20]

Yes.
I thought I did say that and I had to say it in the long-winded way. :p
your described process violates the first law of thermodynamics. so either:
1) revise it, or
2) patent it

[Frohickey]

Okay, I would like to clarify that I am not anti-environment/clean air/water/etc.

I'm against the current crop of environmentalists who think that clean air/water/etc is more important than inherent human rights, and human rights of self extends to what you can gain from your self, which includes the fruits of your labor and thought.

If I were to create an environmental group, I would create a loose-association of likeminded individuals who would pool their resources in order to buy, manage and clean up important and endangered habitats and locations. This would be limited to the purchase of private lands, with the commensurate property taxes paid, or to the purchase of public lands, and the commensurate property taxes paid, with the benefit to members the feeling of doing something right for the habitat purchased, and in such lands that have sufficiently been cleaned up, recreational opportunities and social gatherings with other like minded individuals.

If there were additional monies and energy left over, I would expand this organization to providing legal assistance to members who have their property rights threatened, either by pollution coming from outside their property, or the loss of their right to develop their property. (If they lose their right to their property, then this group could lose our right to our property as well.)

[zimv20]

Okay, I would like to clarify that I am not anti-environment/clean air/water/etc.

is this meant to address the thermodynamic consideration?

[Frohickey]

your described process violates the first law of thermodynamics. so either:
1) revise it, or
2) patent it

Water + energy to split into hydrogen&oxygen + energy lost due to inefficiency = hydrogen + oxygen
Hydrogen + oxygen = water + energy gain from the combustion of hydrogen - energy lost due to inefficiency

Water + energy to split into hydrogen&oxygen + energy lost due to inefficiency = water + energy gain from the combustion of hydrogen - energy lost due to inefficiency

Since energy to split and energy to gain is equal, the energy due to inefficiency will have to be added into the system, and that is a net loss in every hydrogen conversion cycle.

For the crude oil cycle, conversion is one way.

[zimv20]

For the crude oil cycle, conversion is one way.
i'm not following you. for the crude oil conversion only:

if X amount of energy is required to make Y amount of energy, is it the case that:
a) X < Y
b) X > Y
c) X = Y

[Frohickey]

i'm not following you. for the crude oil conversion only:

if X amount of energy is required to make Y amount of energy, is it the case that:
a) X < Y
b) X > Y
c) X = Y

For the crude oil conversion, X < Y. X is the processing energy, Y is the energy content in all the products/byproducts. You can run the refinery off the product/byproduct.

For hydrogen electrolysis, X > Y. X is the electrical energy + inefficiency, Y is the energy content in hydrogen/oxygen. You can't run a hydrogen generation plant off hydrogen and expect some hydrogen to come out of the process.

[zimv20]

For the crude oil conversion, X < Y. X is the processing energy, Y is the energy content in all the products/byproducts. You can run the refinery off the product/byproduct.

that's in violation of the first law of thermodynamics. you're not taking into account the energy required to make the crude in the first place. though you may discount that, since it happened so long ago, it's not renewable w/o adding more energy into the system.

[skunk]

that's in violation of the first law of thermodynamics. you're not taking into account the energy required to make the crude in the first place. though you may discount that, since it happened so long ago, it's not renewable w/o adding more energy into the system.
And what about the extraction?

[Frohickey]

that's in violation of the first law of thermodynamics. you're not taking into account the energy required to make the crude in the first place. though you may discount that, since it happened so long ago, it's not renewable w/o adding more energy into the system.

The energy used in the creation of crude oil is a given.
So is the matter in every gallon of water.
There is no inherent energy in water.
There is inherent energy in crude oil that was used in the creation of crude oil in the first place. That is what we are harvesting, and there is enough energy left over after harvesting (discovery, extraction, refining) to make it economically viable.
There is no inherent energy in water (chemical). At least not enough with which to harvest hydrogen out of it. (If you do happen to discover a way to get enough energy out of water, enough to harvest hydrogen out of it, you would let me know prior to your initial public offering, wouldn't you? ;) )

[Macco]

Okay, I would like to clarify that I am not anti-environment/clean air/water/etc.

I'm against the current crop of environmentalists who think that clean air/water/etc is more important than inherent human rights, and human rights of self extends to what you can gain from your self, which includes the fruits of your labor and thought.


Aren't a clean and healthy environment, atmosphere, and water supply also a human right? Even if the idea of preserving nature for nature's sake, you must understand that maintaining the environment and regulating industry are necessary to guarantee everyone a satisfactory existence. If you get cancer and die from the pollutants in your backyard, or if you can't exercise because of pollution-triggered asthma, or if the Arctic melts and your downtown New York City apartment becomes submerged, then the exercise of your full rights becomes inhibited. Unregulated industry doesn't just hurt the baby marmosets; it hurts every human being as well.

[Frohickey]

Aren't a clean and healthy environment, atmosphere, and water supply also a human right? Even if the idea of preserving nature for nature's sake, you must understand that maintaining the environment and regulating industry are necessary to guarantee everyone a satisfactory existence. If you get cancer and die from the pollutants in your backyard, or if you can't exercise because of pollution-triggered asthma, or if the Arctic melts and your downtown New York City apartment becomes submerged, then the exercise of your full rights becomes inhibited. Unregulated industry doesn't just hurt the baby marmosets; it hurts every human being as well.

A clean and healthy environment, atmosphere, and water supply, all of these are included in a person's property rights, that is, if the person owns property. Your right to a clean water supply does not include taking my bottle of Evian from my hands. Your right to a clean atmosphere and healthy environment does not include the right to hamper my activities in my property. If my activities infringe on your rights, then I don't have a right to continue with these activities.

If the Arctic melts and your downtown NYC apartments becomes submerged, you should have bought flood insurance and bought prime tropical land while it was still under a glacier. :p

How much pollution is too much? Who determines this? The one with the least tolerance for it, or the one with the most?

[Desertrat]

"Even if the idea of preserving nature for nature's sake, you must understand that maintaining the environment and regulating industry are necessary to guarantee everyone a satisfactory existence."

Hell's bells, we DO understand this. That's why, in various ways, in various threads, we've said some equivalent to "It ain't whatcha do, it's how ya do it." Most of the arguments in the mix of science and economics have to do with safe levels of non-natural effluents and cost-effectiveness of dealing with risks.

Maybe a better way to look at the net energy benefit of gasoline: Octane contains about 19,000 BTU per pound. Roughly, 120,000 BTU per gallon. About half of a 44-gallon barrel of oil can be made into gasoline. From an energy standpoint, if the materials and energy of the drilling and production + plus the materials and energy of the refining and shipping are less than 120,000 BTU per gallon of gasoline produced, there is a net gain.

This ignores the dollar value of the remainder of a barrel of crude which goes through the petrochemical process and on into consumer products. There, the value of the products makes it worthwhile to buy energy in the form of electricity, regardless of the source.

From a money standpoint, I'm reasonably sure the non-gasoline portion of a barrel of oil is worth more as to the end products.

'Rat

[mactastic]

In related news, it was discovered that draining the ColoRiver actually led to higher river levels and increased rainfall. Which law does that violate? :D :eek: :eek:

[Desertrat]

Anybody see today's WND link to the Las Vegas News/Herald, with the photo of Lake Mead? "Lowest water level in 47 (IIRC) years"? It's not just water, but also a hydro-electric problem.

Also ran across an article stating that desalinization costs are now down to around $1.60 per 1,000 gallons...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

According to a story I either heard or read yesterday (it's all such a blur sometimes), climatologists are saying this is the driest period in the Southwest in something on the order of 500 years.

[Neserk]

This thread is making me thristy. Kind of like when you see a chocolate bar and start craving chocolate.

[Desertrat]

IJ, there's some archaeological evidence that western Texas, New Mexico and northern Chihuahua are still drying out; the area--mostly the "Chihuahuan Desert"--has been in such a condition since the first abandonment of the various cliff dwellings, some 700 (1,200?) years back.

I know that one of the Terlingua old timers, who had been there since 1928, once commented that the tree line in the Chisos Mountains of Big Bend National Park was moving upward, indicative of reduced long-term average rainfall.

Just in my 30-some years of ratting around that country, there are trickle- and seep-springs which no longer produce water...

'Rat

[Voltron]

I was thinkinghttp://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_sleeping.gif If we did go 100% hydro vehicler systems we would first have problems with the water supply. Yes we could use desalinization, hopefully Israel would sell us their advanced expertise. Then we would have the problem of where to pollute the world with all the waste brine, ie salt, byproduct of desalinization. And finally get ready for monsoonshttp://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_shocked.gif Think about it. We use more water, more water gets mixed into natures recycling system, and it rains more. Course with all that rain we might accidentally bring on the next ice agehttp://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/new_icecream.gif

[Desertrat]

Voltron, the total amount of water doesn't change. The form changes, but the amount does not. It's a closed cycle.

If we desalinized ocean water for all our drinking and industrial purposes, the amount of brine put back into the ocean would be too small a percentage of the total to even measure. The discharge would be via pipe into near-shore currents; it would immediately disperse into a very small increase above the immediate ambient. Sea water is some 30 ppm salt; the change would be less than one ppm almost immediately.

We wouldn't need to buy any technology from the Israelis. We've been doing desalination for a long time. Coalinga, California, has had a dual-use water system since before 1969. One system, merely chlorinated for non-potable use; the drinking water system is supplied by desalt. Boron is the culprit; harmful only if ingested, but no danger to showering and dishwashing. Remember Ronnie Reagan and 20 Mule Team Borax? Boron.

There is a very large desalt plant near I-8 on the Colorado River in California. It was built to clean up agricultural return flows before the water went on to Mexico. While 1960s technology, it works.

Reverse-osmosis systems are in use around the US, in places where the local water supply is overly salty...

'Rat

[zimv20]

does anyone know offhand if there's more water or more oil in/on this planet?

[Desertrat]

I'd bet somebody's gone to the trouble to calculate the gazillion cubic miles of water. Most of it's salty, of course.

Odds are, the Great Lakes, Lake Baikal and a few others hold more water than the total of all oil ever pumped.

'Rat

[zimv20]

i was being a bit facetious in my uncertainty, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt

[Desertrat]

I used to enjoy tweaking some Exxon bigwigs with the comment that oil was trivially important, compared to water. You can't drink oil. Plus, if their pollution screws up the fishing, every redneck in North America will be looking for them, shotgun in hand.

Ya gotta phrase things in a way the audience can understand...

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

Actually where to put the salt from desal plants IS an environmental issue. Overall, yes it's a drop in the bucket. But when you concentrate the effects of a salt increase in a small area (like a near shore dispersal tube) you do run the risk of poisoning an ecosystem.

[Voltron]

Voltron, the total amount of water doesn't change. The form changes, but the amount does not. It's a closed cycle.

'Rat
The more water vapor we emite into the air the more water vapor that must return via rain. Water that wouldn't necessarily evaporate will be placed into the air via exhaust from these hydro vehicles.

[takao]

I'd bet somebody's gone to the trouble to calculate the gazillion cubic miles of water. Most of it's salty, of course.

Odds are, the Great Lakes, Lake Baikal and a few others hold more water than the total of all oil ever pumped.

'Rat

hehe reminds of that funny caclulation with the local see (bodensee)...if we can put all humans of the whole world into it how much would the sea level rise ?
from 0,5 meters to 5 meters depending how close the humans are to each other :) and compared to the baikal sea this a a small bowl of water ....

[Desertrat]

Okay, takao; I'll grab a beer and watch from the Rapunzel tower...

:), 'Rat

[Desertrat]

mac, you run your discharge line offshore a mile or so, and aim the "nozzle" upwards. This keeps the brine away from the bottom. You're outside the usual kelp-bed-type area.

Site selection is made with this sort of discharge-pollution problem in mind.

The trade-off justification is whether you lose an infinitesmal bit of "the environment" vs. drinking water for people.

Depending on surrounding terrain, I guess you could go into the salt-production business as a sideline. :)

'Rat

[mactastic]

'Rat, they said the same thing about once-through cooling systems for power plants. Oh you just build a tube, put it a mile offshore and nothing bad will happen. Guess what? It changed that local ecosystem. Warmer water fish show up in areas where they otherwise wouldn't. Now I'm not saying that's necessarily an environmental catastrophy (unless you do it in an estuary the way they do here :rolleyes: ) but it is reason that you can't belive those who say 'there's no effect if you just do X or Y'.

Site selection generally has more to do with the bottom line than the mitigation effects. Companies don't go looking for the place with the least environmental impact, they look at sites that are the cheapest to build on. As an estimator for large civil projects, I would have thought you of all people would understand that.

[skunk]

Now I'm not saying that's necessarily an environmental catastrophy
Could we have more catastrophe and less catastrophy? Please? :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Could we have more catastrophe and less catastrophy? Please? :rolleyes:

If your country steps out of line you'll get all the catastrophe you can handle buddy. :p

[takao]

the ironic thing is that a 'country' (state ?) as rich as california still has problems with their water/electricity supply
but they they are not the only one ...there are a lot of cities where drinking the 'normal' water is not recommend

[skunk]

If your country steps out of line you'll get all the catastrophe you can handle buddy. :p
:cool: :eek: :D :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

the ironic thing is that a 'country' (state ?) as rich as california still has problems with their water/electricity supply
but they they are not the only one ...there are a lot of cities where drinking the 'normal' water is not recommend

Um. You need to keep up with your current events.

The People's Republic of Kalifornia is not a rich state. Haven't you been paying attention to how much of a budget deficit the Kalifornia legislature has run up ever since the boom in the late '90s and early 2000's?

We are in the hole for more than $15 billion!!!

[Voltron]

Um. You need to keep up with your current events.

The People's Republic of Kalifornia is not a rich state. Haven't you been paying attention to how much of a budget deficit the Kalifornia legislature has run up ever since the boom in the late '90s and early 2000's?

We are in the hole for more than $15 billion!!!
Thats ok its California, if Bush or some real Republican was in charge in the state then they would be preaching about the horrible deficit.

[takao]

Um. You need to keep up with your current events.

The People's Republic of Kalifornia is not a rich state. Haven't you been paying attention to how much of a budget deficit the Kalifornia legislature has run up ever since the boom in the late '90s and early 2000's?

We are in the hole for more than $15 billion!!!

well i doubt that 15 billiom $ came out of nowhere
and yeah why didn't they improve the water/electricity systems when they had money ? they are having those problems for a long time now...

[Frohickey]

well i doubt that 15 billiom $ came out of nowhere
and yeah why didn't they improve the water/electricity systems when they had money ? they are having those problems for a long time now...

Lets see...
You have various groups that file lawsuits and demand environmental impact studies in order to halt the building of power generation plants within California.

You have various groups whose only solution to a looming power shortage is conservation. If they had also added a mandate to shrink the population, via deportation of Californians to other states, then we would have lots of power. :eek:

You have groups in California that are complicit in allowing illegal immigration to remain unchecked. Each of these is a new California resident that uses water and electricity.

How about the groups that want to breach dams, dams that are producing electricity already?

And there are also people within these groups that have participated in halting the building of any nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants can be operated cleanly, without any greenhouse gasses, or any foreign dependence on fuel. I would like to see nuclear power plants springing up in California, with 100% of the workers and their families living within 15 miles of the plant (and also receiving free power from the plant as a consolation). Others living within 50 miles of the plant can then rest assured that the plant will operate safely. (Or so we hope.) :D

[Desertrat]

Mac, I'm fully aware of "Site selection generally has more to do with the bottom line than the mitigation effects. Companies don't go looking for the place with the least environmental impact, they look at sites that are the cheapest to build on."

That's why I've always had some antipathy for bean-counters. But, that's why I've always been a supporter of stringent state and federal requirements for siting. (Realize I get equally browned off at "junk science" objections to some particular site.)

That's one thing I appreciated about the Texas Coastal Zone effort. We took a two-way view: How to help industry provide jobs while protecting the environment; conversely, how to protect the environment without precluding industrial development. It aint easy.

'Rat

[mactastic]

How to help industry provide jobs while protecting the environment; conversely, how to protect the environment without precluding industrial development. It aint easy.

'Rat

Indeed it is not. Although many will tell you that it is easy. All you do is just let the market decide where things are sited. Or conversely that you aren't allowed to build anything at all. Both extremes are out of line.