[OPED] Cali has about 1 years worth of water left

[Block]

Why not just build a bunch of desalinization plants and get some water from the Pacific? Wouldn't that help?

That would be great, but nobody is going to pay for them, and we don't have the electricity capacity to power them.

Well, except for the plant coming online next year near San Diego and the 15 other ones that are in the proposal stage, but are already funded by Prop 1. It's coming, it's just 10 years later than it should've happened because... reasons.

[Borgholio]

The one in Carlsbad took 15 years and cost over a billion dollars, and it's *only* going to supply about 7% of the water needs of San Diego. To supply a substantial amount of water for the entire state including farming, industry, and the other 30+ million people is going to requite hundreds of these things. That's several orders of magnitude more expensive and people were bitching about building just this one!

Would you be able to provide any links about the other 15? Prop 1 only provides about 8 billion dollars and that is to be spread out across the entire water network of the state. If any of that is earmarked for desalinization plants, they would either have to be majorly funded from other sources or be really really tiny.

[amigocabal]

Have water prices risen sufficiently to reflect this news?

I know that oil companies are eager to raise prices whenever there are supply disruptions, and I fail to see the reason why water companies should be different.

Article to this article, it takes about 2,400 gallons (about 9,080 liters) of water to process one pound (about half kilo) of meat. The price of meat can be up to $5.00/lb. If 85% of the price of meat is reflected in the price of the water used to process the meat, then we have $4.25 for 2400 gallons, or 0.177 cents per gallon (about 4.68 E -4 cents per liter)

If water is still this cheap, this explains why people are not so keen to conserve water, especially if the amortization costs of the capital used in water-saving technologies exceed the price of the water saved.

See also this video, which makes my point.

[Simon_Jester]

Have water prices risen sufficiently to reflect this news?

I know that oil companies are eager to raise prices whenever there are supply disruptions, and I fail to see the reason why water companies should be different.

The main issues are that "we're short on reserves" is not the same as "there is a supply disruption..." and that the water companies may well be worried about what happens if they seriously jack up prices. Their customers (i.e. everyone) won't like that and they may exert political pressure that enacts new policies. Which could work out to the long-term cost of the water suppliers.

By contrast, the major oil producers in the world have a lot more actual permanent control over the oil supply than any utility company has over the water supply. They can afford to increase prices via cartel tactics.

That's my guess, anyway.

[Broomstick]

Have water prices risen sufficiently to reflect this news?

Water prices are... complicated. Especially in California.

I know that oil companies are eager to raise prices whenever there are supply disruptions, and I fail to see the reason why water companies should be different.

Water is essential to life in a way petroleum is not, and even in the US water supply for an area is often a single agency that may well be under the control of the government rather than private industry. Some users may have subsidies others do not.

Article to this article, it takes about 2,400 gallons (about 9,080 liters) of water to process one pound (about half kilo) of meat. The price of meat can be up to $5.00/lb. If 85% of the price of meat is reflected in the price of the water used to process the meat, then we have $4.25 for 2400 gallons, or 0.177 cents per gallon (about 4.68 E -4 cents per liter)

Er... meat "up to" $5 a pound? Most types of meat start at that price these days.

Also, most meat raising and processing are not located in California. Usually that's done in areas depending on the Ogallala Aquifer, which is also having issues but that's all east of the Rockies.

If water is still this cheap, this explains why people are not so keen to conserve water, especially if the amortization costs of the capital used in water-saving technologies exceed the price of the water saved.

It's not so simple as that - if I recall, agriculture in the CV enjoys set-asides and subsidies for water. This results in pricing that does not reflect the true cost and impact of water use.

[Patroklos]

The one in Carlsbad took 15 years and cost over a billion dollars, and it's *only* going to supply about 7% of the water needs of San Diego. To supply a substantial amount of water for the entire state including farming, industry, and the other 30+ million people is going to requite hundreds of these things. That's several orders of magnitude more expensive and people were bitching about building just this one!.

You don't need to produce enough for the sum total of all water users in California. California, even under drought conditions, can naturally support most of the demands on its water by human uses. What we need to do is figure out the delta between what that natural support and additional demand is, add in expected future growth on top of that, and set your alternative water supply plans to that. Switching something like 10-20% of California's water supply demand to desalination sources would be huge. Maybe not perfect, but huge nonetheless.

[Borgholio]

Good point. Still, even 10% of our water needs is more than even 15 plants can produce.

[Zaune]

Meanwhile in San Francisco...

A San Francisco Catholic church has reportedly installed a “watering system” that discourages homeless people by drenching them as they sleep.

[Borgholio]

“We do the best we can, and supporting the dignity of each person,” Archdiocese spokesperson Chris Lyford said. “But there is only so much you can do.”

So they'd rather drench the homeless than...oh...I dunno...open the church doors and let them inside as Jesus fucking Christ would have done?

[amigocabal]

“We do the best we can, and supporting the dignity of each person,” Archdiocese spokesperson Chris Lyford said. “But there is only so much you can do.”

So they'd rather drench the homeless than...oh...I dunno...open the church doors and let them inside as Jesus fucking Christ would have done?

Did Orthodox synagogues in 1st century Israel also serve as homeless shelters?

[Simon_Jester]

Jesus was about as unorthodox a Jewish religious figure as could be imagined.

[Irbis]

Well, not without building more nuclear plants for power - and even the most ardent pro-nuclear person can see a rational reluctance to building nuclear facilities near a major fault line with a history of serious earthquakes.

Well, yes, on land. If only someone found a way to put them on say, water...

(Seeing San Andreas Fault is inland, theoretically even small distance from shore should make them safe to operate in the area and possibly first to be plugged back into network in case of disaster, unless I missed something?)

The one in Carlsbad took 15 years and cost over a billion dollars, and it's *only* going to supply about 7% of the water needs of San Diego.

Why so low? I checked, and it apparently produces 50 million gallons of water per day. Land station should be more efficient, yet for 1 bln you could get 4 of the above desalination barges, with capacity nearing 1 mln cubic meters of fresh water daily (265 mln gallons, 5.33 times as much). In fact, even one nuclear barge would outperform it, while being dual purpose on top of that...

Nuclear energy really is underestimated solution, it seems

[amigocabal]

Well, not without building more nuclear plants for power - and even the most ardent pro-nuclear person can see a rational reluctance to building nuclear facilities near a major fault line with a history of serious earthquakes.

Well, yes, on land. If only someone found a way to put them on say, water...

(Seeing San Andreas Fault is inland, theoretically even small distance from shore should make them safe to operate in the area and possibly first to be plugged back into network in case of disaster, unless I missed something?)

The one in Carlsbad took 15 years and cost over a billion dollars, and it's *only* going to supply about 7% of the water needs of San Diego.

Why so low? I checked, and it apparently produces 50 million gallons of water per day. Land station should be more efficient, yet for 1 bln you could get 4 of the above desalination barges, with capacity nearing 1 mln cubic meters of fresh water daily (265 mln gallons, 5.33 times as much). In fact, even one nuclear barge would outperform it, while being dual purpose on top of that...

Nuclear energy really is underestimated solution, it seems

Okay, but how much is it going to cost? Will the revenues generated by the water sold be enough to cover the costs.

Which goes to the heart of the problem. Water is viewed as a free good, while it is clearly not.

Bottled water is the only water product that Americans have routinely priced and marketed. We now happily pay as much as four times the cost of gasoline for potable water that we could have for free from fountains and taps. Of course, economists will tell us factually that bottled water is not the same good. The square Fiji bottle is a sexy statement; and the ubiquitous bottle of water in hand is a fitness and convenience statement. Subjective valuation determines price. A real market in this water product does exist.

Markets for other water products are, meanwhile, mainly nonexistent. We routinely do not pay for most other forms of water. Until recently, water has been viewed and treated as a free good by all Earth's peoples. As with all free goods, water experiences unlimited demand. But water cannot meet unlimited demand. Water needs prices in order to signal scarcity and inform demand. Different categories of water need different prices to reflect the different preferences of users. Free can no longer be water's price. The profligate glory days of limitless water everywhere seem to be over

We will not conserve water unless prices go up. we had this experience with gasoline, so this is what we need with water.

[Irbis]

Okay, but how much is it going to cost? Will the revenues generated by the water sold be enough to cover the costs.

Wiki lists cost as 230 mln $, though other sources go as high as 300 mln. In any case, it's still 3-4 times less than than proposed cost of conventional land desalination plant, for more output.

Which goes to the heart of the problem. Water is viewed as a free good, while it is clearly not.

I know we live in ass backwards times where numbers are apparently more important than people, but water happens to be essential living good. Trying to freemarketize it and forcing people to compete with industry will introduce huge hidden burden on the poor, ending in either people dying or, in worst case, in some sort of revolution (see say French Salt Tax and French Revolution, and that was less essential good). Basic utilities do not need to make a profit, they can even make a loss, and still benefit society at large.

We will not conserve water unless prices go up. we had this experience with gasoline, so this is what we need with water.

Who says we need to do it with all water? Municipal public desalination plant can provide X water to each user for cheap (X being basic drinking/cleaning needs), while people intending to waste it on lawns or inefficient industrial usage can pay full price. Yes, yes, it's evil socialism, I get that

[Tiriol]

Well, not without building more nuclear plants for power - and even the most ardent pro-nuclear person can see a rational reluctance to building nuclear facilities near a major fault line with a history of serious earthquakes.

Well, yes, on land. If only someone found a way to put them on say, water...

(Seeing San Andreas Fault is inland, theoretically even small distance from shore should make them safe to operate in the area and possibly first to be plugged back into network in case of disaster, unless I missed something?)

The one in Carlsbad took 15 years and cost over a billion dollars, and it's *only* going to supply about 7% of the water needs of San Diego.

Why so low? I checked, and it apparently produces 50 million gallons of water per day. Land station should be more efficient, yet for 1 bln you could get 4 of the above desalination barges, with capacity nearing 1 mln cubic meters of fresh water daily (265 mln gallons, 5.33 times as much). In fact, even one nuclear barge would outperform it, while being dual purpose on top of that...

Nuclear energy really is underestimated solution, it seems

Okay, but how much is it going to cost? Will the revenues generated by the water sold be enough to cover the costs.

Which goes to the heart of the problem. Water is viewed as a free good, while it is clearly not.

Bottled water is the only water product that Americans have routinely priced and marketed. We now happily pay as much as four times the cost of gasoline for potable water that we could have for free from fountains and taps. Of course, economists will tell us factually that bottled water is not the same good. The square Fiji bottle is a sexy statement; and the ubiquitous bottle of water in hand is a fitness and convenience statement. Subjective valuation determines price. A real market in this water product does exist.

Markets for other water products are, meanwhile, mainly nonexistent. We routinely do not pay for most other forms of water. Until recently, water has been viewed and treated as a free good by all Earth's peoples. As with all free goods, water experiences unlimited demand. But water cannot meet unlimited demand. Water needs prices in order to signal scarcity and inform demand. Different categories of water need different prices to reflect the different preferences of users. Free can no longer be water's price. The profligate glory days of limitless water everywhere seem to be over

We will not conserve water unless prices go up. we had this experience with gasoline, so this is what we need with water.

As Irbis noted, there's some disturbing implications about placing the importance of economical numbers above human lives. If you start to treat water as some "good" that must be purchased, like gas, you are in fact saying that unless you have enough money, you won't get any water. Do you know what happens to people who don't have access to water? if they don't have any ability to get more water or are lacking in self-preservation instinct, they die. Most will not accept that fate if they can avoid it, so you are in effect proposing a solution that will lead to millions of poor people to become criminals in order to meet the very basic element of their continued survival and existence.

There are other ways to conserve water than making it a common good like gasoline. Care to guess which methods are included on that list? (hint: public and governmental oversight, regulations and penalties for using water indiscriminately for superfluous purposes or wastefully)

[Borgholio]

regulations and penalties for using water indiscriminately for superfluous purposes or wastefully

In many cities they already have ordinances on the books where you can only water by sprinkler x number of days per week or only in the early morning or late afternoon, or where you are not allowed to have any significant amount of runoff from the lawn, etc...

Nobody gives a shit. You still see businesses running full sprinklers at high noon and people have runoff so bad it flows down the gutter and all the way down the block. Unless these existing regulations are actually enforced, piling on new ones isn't going to make any difference.

[Patroklos]

I know we live in ass backwards times where numbers are apparently more important than people, but water happens to be essential living good. Trying to freemarketize it and forcing people to compete with industry will introduce huge hidden burden on the poor, ending in either people dying or, in worst case, in some sort of revolution (see say French Salt Tax and French Revolution, and that was less essential good). Basic utilities do not need to make a profit, they can even make a loss, and still benefit society at large.

Calculate the average usage of a four income household, exempt that amount from the price hike and freeze it at the current rate adjusted by inflation, then accurately price anything over that. So basically what you said

[Titan Uranus]

So, my father and I had an argument over whether piping water from Alaska or building the required number of desalination and power plants would be cheaper.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but using the Turkish water pipeline to their client state in northern Cyprus multiplied by the yearly shortfall and ratio of distance vs the San Diego desalination plant+enough reactors to power it (multiplied by the shortfall) resulted in the piping method costing something like $100 billion dollars vs ~$1 trillion for the desalination method. More would be required to reverse the drought, of course.

Alaska's water reserves are arbitrarily large for this purposes of this calculation, primarily because they are draining at 2.62 e+14 gal/year as near as I can tell.

One thing I didnt have time to factor in was the cost of the pumping stations as well as the branch lines, but I doubt that these would exceed a trillion dollars.

However if anyone can find good values for pumping stations/branch lines, I would be happy to incorporate it.

[Terralthra]

An aquaduct would probably cost between one and three million sesterces per kilometer.

[amigocabal]

I know we live in ass backwards times where numbers are apparently more important than people, but water happens to be essential living good. Trying to freemarketize it and forcing people to compete with industry will introduce huge hidden burden on the poor, ending in either people dying or, in worst case, in some sort of revolution (see say French Salt Tax and French Revolution, and that was less essential good). Basic utilities do not need to make a profit, they can even make a loss, and still benefit society at large.

Calculate the average usage of a four income household, exempt that amount from the price hike and freeze it at the current rate adjusted by inflation, then accurately price anything over that. So basically what you said

that seems similar to an income tax deduction, in that a certain amount is deducted from the total and the remainder is used to calculate the extra price.

A water tax (with, say, a 10,000 gal. deduction) would also work similarly.

[Patroklos]

It would, but that tax money would be squandered on something stupid. By making it a payment to a utility, public or private, you can keep the money inside the water problem. I wouldn't want the high price to just disincentive usage, I want the increased profits/fees to go into the water infrastructure to further reduce waste/usage.

[Simon_Jester]

An aquaduct would probably cost between one and three million sesterces per kilometer.

Hm. Borrowing from Wikipedia, a first century legionaire's take-home pay (minus deductions for food and lodging) was 450 sesterces a year (at least as far as accounting was concerned). In modern terms an infantry private's wages are about $20000 a year, almost all of which is take-home pay as far as I know.

So if we apply the Grunt Standard to the value of money, one sestertius corresponds to roughly 44 dollars and aqueducts 'should' cost roughly, oh... fifty to one hundred and twenty million dollars per kilometer of length.

I wonder how that compares to the real costs?

[madd0ct0r]

to high by a factor of ten, by my reckoning. will try and find some better numbers.

Not sure a canal/aquaduct would be the way to do this. It'd have to be HUGE to get enough water through at a not deadly flow speed. Which might put those numbers back into the right ball park actually. We're not talking a railway viaduct here, but something the size of a large river.

[Simon_Jester]

In that case, I guess aqueducts are cheaper than they were in ancient Rome. Alternatively, grunts have gotten ten times more expensive... which explains a lot.

One problem with the idea of building aqueducts the size of large rivers is that they will take water away from another place on the same scale as a large river. This has serious ecological and economic consequences for the area you drain from, in addition to being hugely expensive.

[Broomstick]

California already drains the Colorado River dry (well, OK, other states help, too). What other rivers and deltas will we sacrifice for the CV?