Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 02:29pm PT
|
RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. — Drought or no drought, Steve Yuhas resents the idea that it is somehow shameful to be a water hog. If you can pay for it, he argues, you should get your water.
People “should not be forced to live on property with brown lawns, golf on brown courses or apologize for wanting their gardens to be beautiful,” Yuhas fumed recently on social media. “We pay significant property taxes based on where we live,” he added in an interview. “And, no, we’re not all equal when it comes to water.”
Yuhas lives in the ultra-wealthy enclave of Rancho Santa Fe, a bucolic Southern California hamlet of ranches, gated communities and country clubs that guzzles five times more water per capita than the statewide average. In April, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) called for a 25 percent reduction in water use, consumption in Rancho Santa Fe went up by 9 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rich-californians-youll-have-to-pry-the-hoses-from-our-cold-dead-hands/2015/06/13/fac6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 03:42pm PT
|
the Los Angeles Aqueduct, (from Owens Valley) in the places where it is a pipe, is in a 12-foot pipe.
A 4 foot pipe wouldn't do much.
==
C'mon.
The Feds have already pledged 190 million in drought relief and are tacking another 90 million on top of that for the drought in Western states. California takes the biggest chunk.
That is actually a very small amount of money. The second Los Angeles Aqueduct cost $90 million, in 1970 dollars. In todays dollars, it would cost $428 million dollars. (very conservatively). It took 5 years to build.
There is virtually no large infrastructure project that could be built in less than 10 years, more likely 20.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 05:29pm PT
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 11:33am PT
Reilly
I don't have a copy of the Carta (whoops, put the Carta befora the Magna) so I cannot say for sure. The date of the law is not apparent either.
Webpages are not, it seems, required by law or eminent domain to provide dates, so this is the best I can do ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.40
Chapter 90.40 RCW
WATER RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES
Complete Chapter
RCW Sections
90.40.010 Eminent domain by the United States.
90.40.020 Right to use water courses.
90.40.030 Notice and certificate, effect of.
90.40.040 Appropriation of water -- Title to beds and shores.
90.40.050 Reservation of needed lands -- Procedure.
90.40.060 Restrictions on sale of state lands within project.
90.40.070 Federal water users' association -- Exemption from fees.
90.40.080 Federal water users' association -- Records by county auditor.
90.40.090 Permit for Grand Coulee project.
90.40.100 Columbia Basin Project -- Water appropriated pursuant to RCW 90.40.030 -- Periodic renewal not required.
--
As to the war, I'd say soon.
I'm confused. Why are you citing State of Washington Law ceding rights to the Feds? Has California adopted Washington code?
(RCW) is Revised Code of Washington)
And it only cedes right of eminent domain for irrigation, not cities.
Maybe your head hurts from trying to read old English.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 05:38pm PT
|
We use to skate these big dudes. They weren't that much fun for the 7 mile walk though.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
I suspect the large diameter has little to do with total volume, compared to the larger diameter equals flatter bottom providing less resistance.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 17, 2015 - 06:44pm PT
|
^Washington law. Well Lorenzo, it's an exercise left to the reader. You have taken on this drought task to a large degree and are doing a fine job.
You tell me the implications of eminent domain in the current water crisis. Feel free to use the Washington law as a guide and/or precedent. :)
What, for example, is the status of the United States of America vis a vis California law and policy re: water rights and usage.
Will there in fact be Obama_WaWa_Care down the pike so to speak? Ask Alito and the gunslinger.
Don't spend too much time on it, there is not a real large audience here.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 20, 2015 - 07:07am PT
|
The battle is joined.
California curtails senior water rights
Court Battles Loom Over California’s Senior Water Rights
Senior rights holders claim state board overstepped its authority
What could be more senior than the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution.
OBAMA_WAWA_CARE coming to a state near you (soon). By right of eminent domain the State and/or The Feds have the most senior rights over everything.
Just an inkling:
Property Rights – Background
“Property rights have two basic components: the individual’s rights and those of
society (the collective public). The individual’s rights, as protected in law,
prescribe acquisition, possession, exclusion of trespass, use for private gain, and
transfer of ownership from one private individual to another. But social rights in
property maintain that the individual rights in property were originally
established and enforced for the collective social welfare and that individual
rights always remain subject to the absolute power of the sovereign or the
state.”
http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2015/06/15/court-battles-loom-over-challenge-to-state-water-rights/
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article23849281.html
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 21, 2015 - 08:48am PT
|
Interesting enough it is only about 1200 miles from Lake Superior to Granby Lake in Colorado. From Granby on down the waterways already exist.
How long is that oil pipeline they're trying to build?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Jun 21, 2015 - 10:19am PT
|
Hey, you can almost see my bro's place in that pic! Interesting that CO
had a good winter. If we have a good one this year theirs will prolly suck.
Lotta water in the Great Lakes...20% of the world's fresh?
But life can be cruel there, too...
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Jun 21, 2015 - 05:22pm PT
|
Hey, that would expose a lot of really good granite.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 11:40am PT
|
Candy Man, Salty Dawg.
An analysis released by independent environmental scientist James Fryer estimates the cost of desalinated seawater in California will be $2,000 to $3,000 or more per acre-foot. Using cost data and production records from existing and proposed desalination plants and adjusting for California water conditions, current energy costs, financing costs, and other variables, the investigation found that there is no evidence to support cost projections by some desalination industry advocates of $800 to $1,000 per acre-foot. The report concludes that conservation measures are much less expensive, with a broad range of well-proven measures that cost well under $1,000 per acre-foot. The report also notes water recycling is a proven option that typically costs between $300 and $1,300 per acre-foot.
Appears to be a margin of error about about 50% (2000-3000). Maybe we water aficianados here on the ST can help him shape up his estimate.
Exhibit 1 - Calculation of Water Authority's CY 2015 Melded Supply Rate
This purports to be water usage in San Diego county in the San Diego County Water Authority’s 24 member agencies areas. Let's take 1999 because the bar stops right at 600,000 acre feet which make the math easier to do. Anyone doing the math as he/she reads.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 12:23pm PT
|
Will folks down there drink reclaimed water? Ouch.
There is a good reason why Carlyle bought our water, with what the fracking is doing out in E.MT, we are sitting on a gold mine. However, MSO just won condemnation in court for ownership. We'll see what happens next. Right now, the river that runs through town is at late July levels with more algae than folks remember seeing.
It is going to be interesting to say teh least.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 12:36pm PT
|
The cost of Co River water is listed on your table: $582 AF
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 12:39pm PT
|
Will folks down there drink reclaimed water? Ouch.
They have been doing so for a long time.
Each city on the Colo River takes out water, then after use runs it through a water treatment facility to purify it, then dumps it BACK into the river, where it then flows downstream to the next city.
Repeat 300 times. Decade after decade.
Then it is pumped to SoCal
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 12:52pm PT
|
Interesting enough it is only about 1200 miles from Lake Superior to Granby Lake in Colorado. From Granby on down the waterways already exist.
How long is that oil pipeline they're trying to build?
here's the problem: Lake Granby is at 8,284 feet in elevation.
Lake superior is at 600 feet.
So you would have to lift all that water 7,600 feet.
Currently, the biggest lift of water in the world is the water from Sacramento to SoCal, about 1900 feet. Costs about 500/ AF
The lift from Superior to Granby would use 4 times as much. So, in energy, would cost about $2,000 / AF PLUS cost of the water, PLUS cost of the project, PLUS financing.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 03:27pm PT
|
Ken M. The chart also lists the cost of desalinized (is that a word) water at $1724, which I presume is an estimate since as far as I can tell the plant is not on line yet. May be the negotiated price.
I do not know about the cost and/or efficiencies of lifting water (where is Hartouni when you need him?). Is height to energy expenditure a linear relation? Perhaps I need to make a field trip to the Edmonston Pumping Plant.
Like was proposed for the cars coming into L.A. from the Valley, they're just going to have to tunnel it I suppose, if they want all that free Michigan water. :)
So the real solution here is controlled nuclear fusion. There will, at some point, be available a couple buildings up at San Onofre, if they figure out where to put all that nasty rad stuff lying around there.
Thanks to wikimedia!
Fusion power would provide more energy for a given weight of fuel than any fuel-consuming energy source currently in use,[178] and the fuel itself (primarily deuterium) exists abundantly in the Earth's ocean: about 1 in 6500 hydrogen atoms in seawater is deuterium.[179] Although this may seem a low proportion (about 0.015%), because nuclear fusion reactions are so much more energetic than chemical combustion and seawater is easier to access and more plentiful than fossil fuels, fusion could potentially supply the world's energy needs for millions of years.[180][181]
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 03:42pm PT
|
^Apparently you have not been following the eminent domain (or was it manifest destiny) discussion.
Further, Fat Dad is researching at this very moment whether it is not in fact true that any waterway that empties into the U.S. owned oceans (that would be the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico - just ask Lindsey Graham) is in fact a public waterway owned by we the people.
So, the only argument is over whether it is we 'the confederate' or we 'the union' people.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 03:57pm PT
|
Without looking very hard, I cannot find major legal impediments to digging your own well on your property. There is some expense though ... and ... is there any water under your lawn?
‘The cost for a 300-foot well will not exceed $6500. Then, for a one-horsepower pump, pipe, control box, pressure tank, and motor, it’s another $3500. Then you might want a storage tank. And the cost of running power from your house to the well will vary.’”
Edit: Quote from 2012 San Diego local paper, presumably for well in East San Diego county.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 05:13pm PT
|
The cost for my(now my X's) well here in JTree was 24,000+
That was going 380' deep and about 3000 of that was for pump, tank, and wiring.
And it costs about 50-70 a month to run it. I hear now their trying to pass laws to allow them to put meters on all private wells.
It costs more for a well in sand compared to rock because they basically have to drill a bigger hole fill it with cement, then redrill and then stick in the pipe.
I did test my vacuum theory. I put one water filled garbage can 5' of the ground in the backyard. And another garbage can in the front yard sitting on the ground and threw a hose over the top of the house and got the water to flow. For free :)
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 05:31pm PT
|
ZBrown - there are future plans to regulate well water consumption in CA, but I suspect that plan may be accelerated considering how fast corporations are planting new almond groves and drilling wells.
The cost of desal is directly related to the cost of energy, with natural gas plummeting in price, the cost of desal has also dropped.
San Diego has been trying to reuse water, opponents tagged it as Toilet-to-Tap and effectively killed the idea years ago. They are now planning on putting the recycled water into local reservoirs, might work if they do not find "Snickers bars" in the lake.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 22, 2015 - 05:43pm PT
|
snicker, snicker :)
It is kind of funny that for the most part reservoirs are "open" and could have all manner of sheeit dropped into them.
For some reason though, fishermen are viewed as more trustworthy than ordinary folks, because they are just about the only ones who can get into Barrett Lake these days. It used to be possible to drive up from the south, but no more. To get in from the north you must have a fishing lottery ticket and be escorted down to the lake.
The road was a very scary trip for a few little kids.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|