11 ms·
With Dry Taps and Toilets, California Drought Turns Desperate
- kapnobatairza 12y agoThis is the kind of thing that makes ambitions to colonize other planets seem silly. If we can't even maintain or control the environment of a planet that is highly livable, how are we expected to terraform Mars?
- myrryr 12y agoWe don't expect to terraform mars, we expect to build a small environment we can live in there and replicate out.
- samuel 12y agoColonizing a close planet like Mars only has any sense as a way of avoiding extinction in case something really nasty happens in Earth. I can't think any other motive to try that.
- teddyh 12y agoWouldn’t you say that the very existence of, say, Las Vegas, is evidence of the possibility of altering an extreme environment to be fit for human conditions? ☺
- pyre 12y agoLas Vegas exists due to the Hoover Dam.
- teddyh 12y agoThe simple idea is then to pre-ship a Hoover Dam equivalent to Mars. Some sort of huge solar array, perhaps?
- dalke 12y agoThe Hoover Dam only exists because of the Colorado river. The closest Mars has are the polar ice caps, which isn't at all close. (If it were, I doubt Denmark would be sending economic subsidizes to Greenland.)
- maxerickson 12y agoWrong benefit. Lake Mead is what gp is talking about.
- pyre 12y agoWell, Las Vegas as a city of lights also exists due to the cheap electricity that the dam provided too.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- privong 12y agoMars could be a laboratory for learning to do these things. As a species, we might feel more comfortable trying exotic methods of controlling the climate on Mars than we might here on Earth. Though I am not sure what the ethics are for terraforming a planet which does not appear to currently have life, it might be less ethically and practically hazardous to experiment with global-scale climate alterations on Mars. Such experiments might have fewer severe consequences on Mars (in terms of flora/fauna extinctions, human deaths, etc.) than a similar experiment on Earth.
- whoisthemachine 12y agoPerhaps our problem on this planet is that there are just too many of us here.
- rtpg 12y agoIs there any way for us to fix this? Like, climate-control style "make it rain in these spots"?
- kevingadd 12y agoAt this point it would take an absurd amount of rain to compensate for the drought. We've been getting insufficient rainfall for years and been consuming water at an unsustainable rate that whole time. Our reservoirs are all extremely depleted. To really be safe we'd have to refill all the reservoirs AND make up for the rainfall deficit on an ongoing basis.
- speakeron 12y agoThere's an easier way than climate control - it's called a pipeline. I'm quite astonished that the richest state in one of the richest countries in the world can't sort this out.
- ghshephard 12y agoCalifornia has a long, long history of water and pipelines. They even made a great movie out of the topic (Chinatown). This guy had a lot to do with much of the pipeline engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland And this is basically what serves all of San Francisco (and the Bay area's) water needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy
- dalke 12y agoAnd that's only the relatively sane pipeline. There's also the proposals to pipe water down from Alaska, as in http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-25/news/mn-596_1_water-problem http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-25/news/mn-596_1_water-p... , with a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment[1] background paper at https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1992/9203/9203.PDF https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1992/9203/9203.PDF . [1] Yes, Congress used to have an office designed to help members of Congress understand science and technology. Congress, under Newt Gingrich, defunded it.
- orbifold 12y agoWhat is the waste water treatment process like? Is any effort being made to replenish the original sources? My understanding is that the water is brought in with pipelines from across a natural water shed that way almost none of the extracted water will return to its original place, instead it will either evaporate and carried out to the sea if used for irrigation or flushed out as waste water.
- dalke 12y agoQuoting from the article: "Hundreds of these homes are hooked to wells that are treated as private property: When the water is there, it is solely controlled by owners. Because the land is unincorporated, it is not part of a municipal water system, and connecting to one would be prohibitively expensive." So, the waster water treatment is septic, the original source is rainwater, and there are no pipelines like what you are talking about.
- sadris 12y agoSolution to problem: Raise water rates. Why is this so hard? Might force people out of the state, but clearly there are too many given the present resources.
- mempko 12y agoThis is a subtle way of saying that there are too many undesirable people. Because clearly raising the rate would only drive away people who could not afford them. The yuppie dream maybe...
- Alex3917 12y agoRaising the water rates would punish the people using millions of gallons of water for agriculture and industry. It would have essentially zero effect on the people using it for personal use, even the very poor.
- 7007 12y agoI've seen similar plans for electricity. The more you use the higher the price goes. For an average persons use the price would be the same (or even lower than previous depending on the scale).
- icehawk219 12y agoIf it's raised for everyone one that's just not true. For the very poor even a small increase in their bills could have huge implications that you and I just can't appreciate. And they're the ones who can't necessarily just pack up and leave because they don't have the resources to. Raising the rates for the right parties is what we should really be talking about but the question then is, who? Small farms and industry would be hit very hard but the ones with deep pockets likely wouldn't blink and they're the biggest problem. In my opinion it would need to be a sliding scale. Not just a "$x for n gallons" pricing structure but the more you use the greater the cost per gallon. That would hit the biggest users the hardest while leaving the average person unaffected (unless for some reason they're using absurd amounts in which case they need to be affected).
- ar7hur 12y agoAll my Palo Alto neighbors who over water their lawns everyday surely don't look very desperate... (which makes me desperate)
- asadotzler 12y agoDiscussing lawn watering is a distraction. It's literally a drop in the ocean. Industry, power generation, and agriculture are where all the water goes. Pretending that residential usage matters at all is to take ones eye off the ball.
- seanflyon 12y agoMore specifically agriculture is 77% and residential is 13% according to this UCLA report from 2009 (though there data looks like it is from 2005). http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article4870.html http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article4870.html http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/images/water-fig1-lrg.jpg http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media/images/water-fig1-lrg....
- ethagknight 12y agoCan someone explain why raising water rates is not a logical solution to this problem? The primary reason why Californian water utilities don't have the resources to invest in large scale reclaimation projects must be related to not charging enough enough for the product. Furthermore, water availability is far more important than water affordability. I'm reading George Gilder's book The Israel Test, and the Israelis have made enormous improvements in the desert to sustainably farm with advanced greenhouses, and they have pioneered desalination methods. I don't know how Californian water utilities operate, but I presume that increased fees from water consumption would go directly toward improving the water acquisition and distribution network. Now, there isn't much that can be done about private wells, but responsible water management across the state (farms) will reduce draw down and lengthen the lives of these wells. EDIT: I see the major issue being that farms probably have private wells anyway, so utility regulation does nothing. Also, well regulation or raising rates would not put most farms out of business, but change farming practices. Total loss of water access puts farms out of business. This argument misses the big picture. Its all moot of farms can dig wells as they please. The state is seeking to implement controls. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/us/politics/desperately-dry-california-tries-to-curb-private-drilling-for-water.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/us/politics/desperately-dr...
- conistonwater 12y agoFrom an economics point of view, it matters whether the water utility has a monopoly. If the people who would end up paying the higher rates have difficulty switching to a different competitor utility, then the incentive to invest in providing more water cheaper is not there. This is generally why many basic utilities, like water and electricity are highly regulated. I don't know much about California's water utilities though, so maybe the competition is in fact there.
- ethagknight 12y agoValid point, but you are implying market rate, or what someone is willing to pay for an item. I am merely suggesting that the water rate reflect the cost of goods sold, where that cost includes the implementation of a more robust and sustainable network to prevent bone dry water sources. No market gouging, just proper long term planning.
- lightblade 12y agoDoes America have any state or federal infrastructure project that transfer water from water rich region to the water poor region? Like this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South–North_Water_Transfer_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South–North_Water_Transfer_Proj...