Forums | MacLife

user wrote:

I need a graywater system myself. The old septic tank can't handle everything.

It should, maybe time to get it pumped out.

Evapotranspiration...

Tallgeese wrote:

avkills wrote:

Shouldn't they be rationing the water to Las Vegas instead -- they waste it like there is no tomorrow.  Let them dry up into the desert they are.  California farms are a lot more important than a bunch of behemoth sized hotels in the middle of the smurfing desert trying to pretend their not in the desert.

-mark

You seem to be under the impression that the San Joaquin valley isn't also desert.

Well geography was never my strong subject.

Deserts in general should not be pumped water from elsewhere to try and make them into something they aren't.

-mark

ShnickyShnack wrote:

avkills wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that the San Joaquin valley isn't also desert.

Well geography was never my strong subject.

Deserts in general should not be pumped water from elsewhere to try and make them into something they aren't.

-mark

In that case California won't be able to support anywhere near its present population of 36 million.

If they have natural water flow because of rivers is one thing.  Artificially pumping water from wetlands to known deserts is just plain silly.  I afraid that the plains of Colorado may suffer the same fate.

-mark

Why not? Because dams are extremely expensive, because we've lost more than the conservative's favorite target (owls) - we've lost huge amounts of (formerly) commercially viable fisheries, wiped out towns and ancestral Indian lands (but for some reason the wealthiest landowners not only don't get flooded by reservoirs but also get the reservoir water for cheap), there aren't "complaints about salinity" from Mexico - we're sending them goddamn poison. And you think because a small percentage of barely usable water trickles to Mexico (and they only get that because we were afraid they were going to strike oil and get revenge) that there is clearly water available?

Not only is the water running out, but if by some miracle we diverted all the "excess" water from the areas of the continent where people can live without billions of dollars of taxpayer largesse, the fact remains that when you send water to an area and the water doesn't leave the area by surface flow or aquifer recharge (for example, a terminal lake or an irrigated desert), minerals build up. Every irrigated desert field in the West is slowly but surely poisoning itself. There are already former croplands that are being abandoned due to salt buildup in the earth, since as I mentioned, if you send billions of gallons of water to an area and then it evaporates off, it leaves all the minerals behind.

We're literally poisoning the earth, wrecking the ecosystems of a third of the continent, condemning large parts of Mexico to poverty - and doing it all through taxpayer money (funny how these states and regions are so very Republican). As the water runs out (and it will) and the land becomes increasingly hostile to plant life (we've eliminated the native desert vegetation on millions of acres to make way for cotton or wheat or alfalfa), we're looking at a dust bowl to dwarf The Grapes of Wrath.

And you think that the problem is a goddamn salamander?

Jesus Christ, read a book.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-02-22 6:21 pm)

radarman wrote:

avkills wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In that case California won't be able to support anywhere near its present population of 36 million.

If they have natural water flow because of rivers is one thing.  Artificially pumping water from wetlands to known deserts is just plain silly.  I afraid that the plains of Colorado may suffer the same fate.

-mark

As long as the water is available, why not? Ok, draining wetlands might irritate a few species of owl, perhaps a salamander or two, but deserts - when properly hydrated, are some of the most fertile places on Earth - largely because all of their mineral content is still there, and not diluted away through the eons. Sure, if the available water goes down, you may have to get by on less, but doing nothing would be a waste. The last time I checked, a portion of the Colorado was still making its way to Mexico (though they seem to complain about the salinity or whatnot), so clearly there is water available.

The question is not whether "a few species of owl" are irritated, but whether that level of consumption is sustainable.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

avkills wrote:

If they have natural water flow because of rivers is one thing.  Artificially pumping water from wetlands to known deserts is just plain silly.  I afraid that the plains of Colorado may suffer the same fate.

-mark

As long as the water is available, why not? Ok, draining wetlands might irritate a few species of owl, perhaps a salamander or two, but deserts - when properly hydrated, are some of the most fertile places on Earth - largely because all of their mineral content is still there, and not diluted away through the eons. Sure, if the available water goes down, you may have to get by on less, but doing nothing would be a waste. The last time I checked, a portion of the Colorado was still making its way to Mexico (though they seem to complain about the salinity or whatnot), so clearly there is water available.

The question is not whether "a few species of owl" are irritated, but whether that level of consumption is sustainable.

Short answer, NO! Long answer, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Draining wetlands more often than not fundamentally alters there ability to be wetlands. Ecosystems affect the climate that produce them. If you dry out an area it barring significantly overriding geological features, the local climate more often than not shifts to maintain the new ecosystem. The increased humidity in wetland make the formation of rains more likely. Warm arid conditions cause many of the plants necessary for water retention to die and bare surfaces which store/reflect heat to become exposed.

ScifiterX wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

radarman wrote:

As long as the water is available, why not? Ok, draining wetlands might irritate a few species of owl, perhaps a salamander or two, but deserts - when properly hydrated, are some of the most fertile places on Earth - largely because all of their mineral content is still there, and not diluted away through the eons. Sure, if the available water goes down, you may have to get by on less, but doing nothing would be a waste. The last time I checked, a portion of the Colorado was still making its way to Mexico (though they seem to complain about the salinity or whatnot), so clearly there is water available.

The question is not whether "a few species of owl" are irritated, but whether that level of consumption is sustainable.

Short answer, NO! Long answer, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

There are plenty of tankers now idle in port... and I hear there's plenty of water left in the Amazon rainforests. Can't let a few treefrogs impede progress.

Bat wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The question is not whether "a few species of owl" are irritated, but whether that level of consumption is sustainable.

Short answer, NO! Long answer, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

There are plenty of tankers now idle in port... and I hear there's plenty of water left in the Amazon rainforests. Can't let a few treefrogs impede progress.

While I'm sure that you're being facetious, I'd like to note:
The largest supertankers in the world have a 3 million barrel capacity.
3 million barrels = 126 million gallons.
1 acre-foot = 325,000 gallons.
1 tanker = 387 acre-feet of water.

There's a cotton farm in the San Joachin Valley that's 40,000 acres. It would take, therefore, 100 full tanker trips just to put a foot of water on that one farm.

Yes, it really is that much water.

I5 about 5 miles north of Redding is currently closed due to flooding.
We are getting some serious rain this month.

Rez is a long way from desert.

resedit wrote:

I5 about 5 miles north of Redding is currently closed due to flooding.
We are getting some serious rain this month.

Looks like the current system is through for tonight, but it looks like you have more coming in if the forecast for Klamath Falls give any clue. Doppler radar out of Medford looks to be clear for tonight though.

Chickenhawk wrote:

then why should we care that its flooding near him?

Because the Shasta Reservoir is the lowest it has been in about 20 years and provides a significant amount of the water used in California Farming. Also one of our Salmon runs is considered critically endangered, so output from the Dam to the Sacramento River must take both the water temperature into consideration as well as the water flow, much harder to do in dry years. We need wet years to bring the population of that run of Salmon back up so that it easier to take the farmers needs into consideration.

One of the problems is that Shasta Dam was taking water too close to the surface resulting in water that was too warm causing the Salmon to die. They (the gov) spent a crapload of money to fix the issue so that colder water from deeper down could be taken. But with low water levels, even that isn't as cold so they can't release the amount of water needed for the farmers as it warms the river too much.

The point is it looks like the predictions of a very dry year from la niña are not panning out, and the drought may already be over.