
Drought-Stricken California Communities Consider Desalination - MilnerRoute
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/03/09/drought-california-desalination
======
steven2012
I've heard that it's the farmers that are taking up the bulk of the water, and
if they weren't planting water-intensive crops like pistachio nuts and
almonds, we wouldn't be in a drought. Is this correct, or just hogwash?

~~~
EdwardDiego
Do people in California water their lawns? Cosmetic grass must be one of the
biggest users of urban water - the last time I left our sprinkler system on
for a day (I turned them on to humour our landlords, never turned them on
since), it drained our 2500L tank, which is not ideal when you 'only' get 900L
a day.

I like the Las Vegas approach of painting rocks green, no watering and best of
all, no mowing.

~~~
ouchy
If all Californians stopped watering their lawns, the state's water situation
would remain almost wholly unchanged. It's an incredibly minor contributing
factor.

Most of the laws passed mandating reduced watering are done primarily to
satisfy the electorate that "something is being done," so they don't notice or
care that groundwater supplies are being rapidly depleted in the interest of
making billions off nut sales:

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/almonds-
water...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/almonds-water-
walnuts-pistachios-california-drought-charts)

~~~
sanswork
While I agree that lawn watering regulations in most places will do very
little to actually help conserve water directly I think it goes a long way to
making water shortages real to people. It's very hard to believe there is a
serious issue when everywhere you look sprinklers are going. Being forced to
conserve water in a simple way like that probably isn't going to be a direct
benefit but getting people thinking about it more by it directly affecting
their lives definitely can be.

~~~
zaroth
I think just the opposite. You pass a law and _think_ you've done something,
but actually the problem remains exactly as large as is was the day before.
And now you have another excuse for more bureaucracy, call lines for snitching
on neighbors, excuses to fine people exorbitant fees which can hit a family
very hard, etc. I think it's the worst possible action we could take.

There was a period in Bay Area about a year ago, before some of the more
strict regs were enacted, when the local papers were running front page
stories almost daily about water shortage and the city's refusal to implement
"common sense policies" and other such nonsense. No one said a peep about that
bag of almonds which wasted as much water as your entire house would use that
month, lawn watering included.

I see it as a means of subjecting the population toward ever increasing levels
of scrutiny, control, and government interference. The drought is just an
excuse. The policy has zero meaningful impact except to expand government
largess and the populace's willingness to kowtow to authority.

~~~
sanswork
For most people sure they will stop watering their lawn pat themselves on the
back and be done with it. You won't ever get action from those people though
so we can ignore them. There is a smaller group that will be annoyed that they
are having to make sacrifices when industry/agriculture isn't and those people
will be pushed to be more active.

Does it guarantee improvements? Nope, but it does get more people on the side
of conservation.

Any way to improve it would require increasing levels of government
interference. Clearly people(industry included) aren't willing to self
regulate their water usage or they would already be doing so.

~~~
ouchy
It gets people _thinking_ they're conservationists. It doesn't necessarily
make them conservationists. In fact, I'd argue it has tended to produce the
opposite effect, because it creates a mental barometer based on the wrong
indicators.

And any way to improve it may require increasing levels of government
interference, but increasing levels of government interference ≠ improvement.

I know it sounds obvious when put that way, but too many people fall into the
trap of thinking that because something must be done, anything must be done.
And, that because something was done, it was a good thing. Which is seldom
true, unfortunately.

~~~
sanswork
I agree it will make lots of people think their conservationists when in
reality they are just retweeters/fb likers but I disagree that it won't
actually lead more people to being actual conservationists.

>And any way to improve it may require increasing levels of government
interference, but increasing levels of government interference ≠ improvement.

Agreed but I think increasing interference in the "wrong"(as in not most
effective place I.E. watering lawns) place will put pressure on them to also
put pressure on the right places so the people under the first problem don't
feel like they are over contributing.

That said I've not read any studies on this so really I'm just guessing blind
here.

------
ghshephard
Desalination is a no-brainer for residential use. Less than $0.50/1000 liters
to generate, and, on the coast, transport costs are low.

~~~
bronson
It's only a no-brainer as a last resort. Your number is preposterously low,
and desal's environmental costs are pretty high. Where possible, conservation
is a better plan.

Here in California, desalination runs about $2000-$3000 per acre-foot, so your
number is more like $1.60-$2.40/1000 litres. (For comparison, I pay around
$5/HCF for rainwater from my city, which is $1.70/1000 litres.)

And even that price doesn't include externalities. Desalination takes a huge
amount of energy, and the salt doesn't just disappear. It gets pumped back
into the ocean along with chemicals:
[http://www.paua.de/Impacts.htm](http://www.paua.de/Impacts.htm)

~~~
ghshephard
The Tuaspring desalination plant at S$ $0.45/m^3 in Singapore, 318,500
m^3/day. [1]. At 1233 m^3/acre foot, that's $399/acre foot. Not that useful
for the central valley, because it's expensive to transport, but fine for the
coastal cities.

The technology has advanced a lot recently, so older plants (or plants that
were started a while ago), might be more expensive.

It's even cheaper just to recycle water, so that's another option in the
toolkit for the California Cities.

Conservation has it's place, efficiency even more so, but for residential use,
with a bit of planning, it's entirely reasonable for an individual to consume
200 liters/day.

[1] [http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2013/09/singapore-s-
secon...](http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2013/09/singapore-s-second-
desalination-facility-set-to-open-with-combined-power-plant.html)

------
stephentmcm
This is a great idea. Victoria, Australia built one and the drought conditions
immediately abated making the entire thing pointless. I'm sure someone here
can find a term for describe the sense of 'fate' created by seeing something
created to protect against a now non-existent issue.*

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Desalination_Plant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Desalination_Plant)

*I realise Australia as a whole is likely to lapse into drought again and make having a desal plant good but until then it's amusing.

~~~
vondur
This too happened here in California. The city of Santa Barbara build a
desalination plant, and it opened just in time for the drought to end. It's
been unused since 1991, they are now planning to get it up and running again.

~~~
Dylan16807
Now? What took so long?

~~~
bronson
Because there was no need. Reservoirs were full and residents conserved:
[http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system/...](http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system/sources/desalination.asp)

FWIW, this explains why it will take 20 mil to get it back on line:
[http://www.noozhawk.com/article/santa_barbara_desalination_p...](http://www.noozhawk.com/article/santa_barbara_desalination_plant_water_drought_20140131)
One eye-opener: reverse osmosis membranes break down with disuse so they were
sold to Saudi Arabia.

------
mrinterweb
If the drought in California is a continuing trend, which many believe will be
the case, desalinization may be the only option. Desalinization requires a lot
of energy and that demand could be met by solar and potentially, in the near
future, fusion energy. [http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-
fusion.htm...](http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.html)

~~~
zachrose
Hopefully! Otherwise the energy needs will be met with fossil fuels that
exacerbate climate problems that desalination is trying to be a solution for.

------
lisowski
Vice did an excellent mini-doc on the issue. They do a good job of covering
the problems, effects, and solutions. It is such a complicated situation!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUwjk4S3gw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUwjk4S3gw)

------
gojomo
Another thing I expect California to eventually try: geoengineering far out in
the Pacific, to create extra winter storms.

