Water conservation

[JoeP]

One thing that baffles me is why California isn't water independent. They could have been building desalination plants over the last 50 years, but they haven't. Seems they are more concerned about some liken or some other useless sea life and would rather drain Lake Meade. Idiots.

Desalination requires a lot of energy to break the molecular bonds. So part of the planning involves satisfying the energy needs. Especially in CA where it is very sunny, there are other technologies, such as solar distillation, that are becoming more relevant parts of the water demand solution.

I was pleased to see vineyards in southern CA that were watered through underground drip irrigation. This technique puts water right where it is needed and cuts way down on evaporation losses.

[Fishindude77]

Maybe droughts are nature's way of saying, "Find a better place to plant crops and raise livestock."

This is the bottom line.
Quit trying to raise critters, grow stuff, and reside in areas that weren't meant for it.

[Petunia 100]

Pennsylvania

Good to know, thank you.

[TexasHusker]

So we should sign up for the Texas power grid model? LOL get out

you did a funny!

[ua_guy]

Lawn irrigation is nothing in the scheme of things in terms of water usage.

You said the government. That's your go-to. I didn't. The government is pretty inefficient at pretty much anything it gets involved in.

So we should sign up for the Texas power grid model? LOL get out

[TexasHusker]

And it's not "just water", but can amount to thousands of gallons in a year, per household.
Lots of money in product every year to keep a lawn growing and ever-green, weed and moss free, dumping petrochemicals into groundwater systems.
Fossil fuel to mow and maintain it.
For what?

National pipelines? lol. So now we need the government to save us?

Lawn irrigation is nothing in the scheme of things in terms of water usage.

You said the government. That's your go-to. I didn't. The government is pretty inefficient at pretty much anything it gets involved in.

[TexasHusker]

Dry areas in Texas that provide crops of beef should get water because it's a necessity as long as there is demand for beef. That may change over time, though, if people consume less beef or the livestock is moved to areas that have easier and more reliable access to water. While the crops get water, I am still opposed to residential water usage to have green lawns...what is the possible benefit?

I have mixed feelings about water pipelines. What would the ramifications be to the Great Lakes ecosystems, for example, if we started pulling water out to irrigate dry areas? Maybe droughts are nature's way of saying, "Find a better place to plant crops and raise livestock."

Where I live, MOST of the water being utilized is from farmers who are raising crops that are "thirsty" (corn). Lawn irrigation isn't even a blip on the radar compared to what those farmers are using. But that presents not only a moral and ethical question, but a legal one: If I own 2000 acres of farmland, while it may be unethical to raise corn because of the water it takes, don't I have a legal right to the water and minerals beneath my land? Sticky wicket right there.

As for the Great Lakes, those are basically fresh-water oceans. I don't think enough water could ever be diverted from them to amount to anything, but what do I know. The Great Lakes have 6 quadrillion gallons of water, or 6 thousand trillion. That's 667 times as much water as there is in Lake Mead, and about 428 times the water in the Ogallala Aquifer.

If California was solely dependent on the Great Lakes for water, and the Great Lakes never recharged, it would take 7,210 years to empty the Great Lakes.

[ua_guy]

Dry areas in Texas that provide crops of beef should get water because it's a necessity as long as there is demand for beef. That may change over time, though, if people consume less beef or the livestock is moved to areas that have easier and more reliable access to water. While the crops get water, I am still opposed to residential water usage to have green lawns...what is the possible benefit?

I have mixed feelings about water pipelines. What would the ramifications be to the Great Lakes ecosystems, for example, if we started pulling water out to irrigate dry areas? Maybe droughts are nature's way of saying, "Find a better place to plant crops and raise livestock."

And it's not "just water", but can amount to thousands of gallons in a year, per household.
Lots of money in product every year to keep a lawn growing and ever-green, weed and moss free, dumping petrochemicals into groundwater systems.
Fossil fuel to mow and maintain it.
For what?

National pipelines? lol. So now we need the government to save us?

[JoeP]

I live in a part of Texas where, if you didn't water it, everything would be dead. And if everything was dead, that wouldn't be too good - this small region provides roughly half of the beef consumed in the U.S. Of course, we are sitting on top of the largest aquifer in the world - the Ogallala - but even it is not bottom-less.

At some point - certainly not in my lifetime - we will as a nation need to create a pipeline/water distribution system (a network of pipelines) to better address areas that are suffering drought, not unlike a power grid. The southeastern US had almost a decade-long drought that ended just a few years ago. These situations could be greatly eased with a water supply grid system.

Droughts are nothing new, but they could sure be better managed.

Dry areas in Texas that provide crops of beef should get water because it's a necessity as long as there is demand for beef. That may change over time, though, if people consume less beef or the livestock is moved to areas that have easier and more reliable access to water. While the crops get water, I am still opposed to residential water usage to have green lawns...what is the possible benefit?

I have mixed feelings about water pipelines. What would the ramifications be to the Great Lakes ecosystems, for example, if we started pulling water out to irrigate dry areas? Maybe droughts are nature's way of saying, "Find a better place to plant crops and raise livestock."

[bjl584]

It baffles me why these areas that are running out of water continue to allow expansion and development, more buildings, more people, etc.
Limited resources should mean a limited amount of people reside there.

Didn't Las Vegas do just that?
I believe that they were only going to allow expansion out to a certain point into the foothills.
This was back in 2007 or so when a huge amount of people were moving there.
The housing market collapse ended the influx, so I don't know where they stand today.

[Fishindude77]

It baffles me why these areas that are running out of water continue to allow expansion and development, more buildings, more people, etc.
Limited resources should mean a limited amount of people reside there.

[bjl584]

One thing that baffles me is why California isn't water independent. They could have been building desalination plants over the last 50 years, but they haven't. Seems they are more concerned about some liken or some other useless sea life and would rather drain Lake Meade. Idiots.

They could be electric independent too, but that isn't going so well either.

[corn18]

One thing that baffles me is why California isn't water independent. They could have been building desalination plants over the last 50 years, but they haven't. Seems they are more concerned about some liken or some other useless sea life and would rather drain Lake Meade. Idiots.

[TexasHusker]

I'll agree that the concept is similar, but not the same; there is a difference between use and waste. In this discussion, "use" means consumption necessary to exist, and "waste" means consumption beyond necessity. I think we can all agree that until someone invents a location where resource usage is unnecessary, we all need to use resources wisely to simply exist.

Watering lawns in places they shouldn't exist is unnecessary and wasteful usage. Same would be the case for someone in Northern Canada setting up huge natural gas furnaces to keep their yard above 70 degrees F year-round so they can enjoy the palm and citrus trees they want to have in their yard.

I live in a part of Texas where, if you didn't water it, everything would be dead. And if everything was dead, that wouldn't be too good - this small region provides roughly half of the beef consumed in the U.S. Of course, we are sitting on top of the largest aquifer in the world - the Ogallala - but even it is not bottom-less.

At some point - certainly not in my lifetime - we will as a nation need to create a pipeline/water distribution system (a network of pipelines) to better address areas that are suffering drought, not unlike a power grid. The southeastern US had almost a decade-long drought that ended just a few years ago. These situations could be greatly eased with a water supply grid system.

Droughts are nothing new, but they could sure be better managed.

[JoeP]

Yes, but it's the same concept. People in dry states are wasting water to keep things wet. People in hot states are wasting energy trying to keep things cool. Etc.

I'll agree that the concept is similar, but not the same; there is a difference between use and waste. In this discussion, "use" means consumption necessary to exist, and "waste" means consumption beyond necessity. I think we can all agree that until someone invents a location where resource usage is unnecessary, we all need to use resources wisely to simply exist.

Watering lawns in places they shouldn't exist is unnecessary and wasteful usage. Same would be the case for someone in Northern Canada setting up huge natural gas furnaces to keep their yard above 70 degrees F year-round so they can enjoy the palm and citrus trees they want to have in their yard.