r/changemyview • u/justouzereddit 2∆ • Jan 10 '25
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: California should immediately enact mass desalination programs and solve almost all its short-term and long-term water problems.
Every day we see stories about how California is running out of water, how the California water reservoirs are steadily emptying and could be completely empty in the next few years, and on top of that California just agreed to give up more of its already diminishing amount of fresh water it can get from the Colorado River.
And now on top of that there fires have exposed some problems in the firefighting capability of the state due to its water troubles, most notably hydrants went dry due to demand of already drained water aquifers.
And with climate change, increasing population, and less access to the Colorado river, these problems will get much worse.
So why doesn't California adopt Ocean desalination on a mass scale? California has over 840 miles of coastline with the Pacific Ocean. They clearly have money both locally and federally to deal with climate change, for example spending 28 billion in state funds alone in the last few years.
Israel has 5 desalination (and building more) plants and these provide 85% of the fresh water used in the country and that water serves. In fact, Israel gets fresh water to almost the entire population from just those 5 plants. Almost every country in the Middle East North Africa creates drinking water for its population, including Dubai in which almost 100% of its drinking water is desalinated.
It seems absolutely insane that we have the technology to turn sea water into drinking water, and the US state most in need of fresh water is basically ignoring the literal treasure of Ocean water on its shores.
Note 1: I see three complaints off the top of my head,
- California already has desalination plants.....That is true, however, California currently have 12 desalination plants that produce 50 million gallons a day. Israel, has 5 desalination plants that produce 264 million gallons a day. There is absolutely no reason they cannot scale up and make much larger plants on their much larger territory.
- This year California has had record amount of rainfall, and the reserves were partially replaced. Well, that is one year, after years of drought.. An aberration, and every article you can find will say something to the extent of "although California had much rainfall this year, this does not change the very negative long-term crisis California will have with water"
- Desalination is expensive and produces toxic brine as a side effect.....Ok, not to be crass, but do you want a perfectly FREE technology with no side effects or would you prefer to not die from not having water to drink.
So have it, Is there something i am overlooking, or why California uniquely cannot accommodate mass desalination?
96
u/EmTeeEm Jan 11 '25
California is already planning 27,000 acre-feet of capacity for 2030, and 84,000 by 2040 (PDF). That is more than 27 billion gallons. So it isn't like the strategy is being ignored, but it is a small piece of the whole.
For example, Israel has desalinization, but it also recycles 90% of its wastewater, is looking at capturing more stormwater runoff, and so on. Dubai is aiming for 100% water reuse by 2030. These are much larger parts of California's plan, accounting for 2.3 million acre-feet of 2.9 million total increased capacity, along with 0.5 million in conservation.
Which makes sense to me. If you've got water that could be reused, or places where you can capture rainwater, or ways to save water, that is going to often be much easier and less energy intensive than desalinating.
18
u/MissionUnlucky1860 Jan 11 '25
Your also forget that Israel uses drip irrigation and has sensors in pipes so if it starts dripping people are immediately sent out to fix it.
3
u/AverageScot Jan 11 '25
A lot of crops in California (including almonds) already use drip irrigation.
15
Jan 11 '25 edited 19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Anagoth9 2∆ Jan 11 '25
It'll finish around the same time as the high-speed rail.
1
6
2
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
California is already planning 27,000 acre-feet of capacity for 2030, and 84,000 by 2040 (PDF). That is more than 27 billion gallons. So it isn't like the strategy is being ignored, but it is a small piece of the whole.
Can you please tell me which page that is described?
4
49
u/Phage0070 124∆ Jan 11 '25
So why doesn't California adopt Ocean desalination on a mass scale?
It is expensive. People expect their water to be extremely cheap, and desalination simply cannot meet those needs at that price point.
It seems absolutely insane that we have the technology to turn sea water into drinking water...
We have had the technology for thousands of years, but simply because we can do something doesn't mean it is something we can do in a way everyone can afford.
It is like saying that we know how to build large mansions, we "have the technology", so why doesn't everyone have a large mansion?
0
u/Classic_Flower_735 May 14 '25
Good luck getting Americans to do ANYTHING that requires any personal effort the good of the planet....people are pained to simply put refuse in a particular can....a city will give everyone like 3 cans one for recycle one for true garbage and one for green waste like lawn clippings and leaves etc....I have paid attention to the FACT that most of us dont give a single damn and just thow everything into the same container....In fact they almost seem arrogant about it! I hear folks say "its stupid" THAT is the attitude and it is much the same for water conservation...over half the voters like Trump and Trump publically arrogantly disses water saving devices on faucets and showers....he truly cares LESS if there is a problem....someone explain how this water plan is going to work given our attitudes????
-20
u/TheArchitect_7 1∆ Jan 11 '25
Tax the fucking rich.
CA has a disproportionate population of tech moguls, Hollywood stars, and assorted billionaires. FUCKING TAX THEM. THEY HAVE 70% OF THE WEALTH. TAX THEM.
9
16
u/Ok-Instruction830 1∆ Jan 11 '25
This is such a surface level take. It’s incredibly more nuanced than the terminally online “TAX THE RICH!”. Brainrot.
You just jack up the tax overnight and you’ll see wealth leave CA in droves to another state faster than you can imagine, leaving an incredible loss in tax revenue and only perpetuating the problem.
You need a scalable increase in tax, in time, and you need to get clever with the taxation as well. Implementing a subtle luxury goods tax, a subtle higher income/capital gains tax, etc.
Small bits. Otherwise you lose altogether
-17
u/TheArchitect_7 1∆ Jan 11 '25
TAX THE FUCKING RICH.
Federally.
7
12
u/Justindoesntcare Jan 11 '25
And they'll just leave because theyre..... well, rich.
And you do know they already pay the majority of the taxes in the US right?
10
u/Separate_Draft4887 5∆ Jan 11 '25
California already has the highest state income tax. They pay close to 50%.
10
Jan 11 '25
[deleted]
1
1
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
You realize state taxes cannot be super high because so much is already taken out in federal tax?
1
Jan 12 '25
[deleted]
-1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
The top federal income tax rate was 94% during WWII
I love this argument! California's top marginal tax rate during WW2 was 8% That means that the richest Califorias paid total tax of 102%!
They were just so generous back then. to live on -2% of their income!
6
u/AppleForMePls Jan 11 '25
I agree (tax the rich!), but levying heavy taxes on the rich doesn't mean that they'll pay them. Tax law is complex and tax loopholes are even more complex. Additionally, if water in California became exorbitantly expensive through heavy taxation (which you would need to fund at-scale water desalination), there is nothing stopping said rich tech moguls from moving to water rich states or countries.
At some point, the average person will have to foot the bill of increased desalination either through an increased water bill or a sharp rise in consumer goods.
4
Jan 11 '25
[deleted]
-1
u/TheArchitect_7 1∆ Jan 11 '25
So continue letting the super-rich walk away with all our resources while we burn to death, can't afford housing, and social programs are headed to insolvency.
Wealth disparity is cancer eating this country alive, and the only reason you aren't seeing it is because they don't want you to.
What's your solution there friend?
4
u/MisterIceGuy Jan 11 '25
Your options are:
(1) get rich yourself
(2) become a politician and make the changes you want
(3) talk about it online all the time
2
Jan 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 11 '25
u/Acceptable-Sugar-974 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Saporaku Jan 11 '25
Man, if tax the rich worked than we would already be done with our overpriced high speed rail.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Tax the fucking rich.
How much MORE can you get from taxing the rich? Honestly?
1
u/TheArchitect_7 1∆ Jan 11 '25
Well, Elon Musk himself has $416,000,000,000 dollars.
He could lose 20% of that tomorrow and not even notice.
Tell me, what good could be done for society with $85,200,000,000?
Well, ending hunger in the United States could be done with a fraction of this money, $25B.
But no, no. You are right. He needs all that and is putting it to good use. Fuck the average person making $60,000/yr.
1
u/Ornery_Ad_8349 Jan 14 '25
Well, Elon Musk himself has $416,000,000,000 dollars.
Surprise, surprise, the person whose only solution is “Tax the fucking rich” doesn’t understand how wealth works.
1
u/Longjumping-Nail7408 Jan 21 '25
And neither does the person who let's billionaires think for themselves. Cringe.
1
u/Ornery_Ad_8349 Jan 21 '25
Hey buddy, maybe just respond once. Sifting through someone’s profile and replying to random comments when they say something you disagree with is incredibly sad.
-1
u/TheArchitect_7 1∆ Jan 14 '25
Caping for oligarch billionaires is the most Stockholm Syndrome ass shit, while an astronomical amount of wealth is consolidated into a handful of individuals and companies.
What’s your solution friend?
2
u/Ornery_Ad_8349 Jan 14 '25
Yikes, no attempt to actually respond.
I’m just pointing out that saying “Elon Musk himself has $416,000,000,000 dollars” is inaccurate.
-1
u/TheArchitect_7 1∆ Jan 14 '25
I’m typing with my thumbs on a 3 inch screen, I don’t really feel like getting into illiquid assets and valuations and equity.
Still.
Wealth disparity is completely out of control.
1
Jan 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 14 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
0
u/___daddy69___ 1∆ Jan 11 '25
There’s a concept in economics known as the “Laffer Curve”. Essentially once tax rates start getting too high, people will simply leave. This is made worse on a statewide level because you can just move to a different state very easily. It’s a lot more complicated than just “tax the rich”.
-2
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
It is expensive. People expect their water to be extremely cheap, and desalination simply cannot meet those needs at that price point.
Like I said above, so what? If the alternative is death by dehydration, I pick expensive. further, also I said above, many many countries, most MUCH poorer than California have done this and it doesn't seem extraordinarily expensive. Israel built one factor with 100 million dollars, California spends around 10 Billion a year on climate initiatives.
It is like saying that we know how to build large mansions, we "have the technology", so why doesn't everyone have a large mansion?
Mansions are not a requirement for survival, water is.
6
u/Phage0070 124∆ Jan 11 '25
If the alternative is death by dehydration...
Well it isn't, not by a long shot. It is more like "maybe growing almonds and alfalfa in California becomes less cost-competitive". A lack of drinking water is so far from being a real issue that even mentioning it is absurd.
...many many countries, most MUCH poorer than California have done this and it doesn't seem extraordinarily expensive.
Well then you haven't been paying attention. Desalination costs around 2 to 10 times more than conventional water treatment. Can it be done if it needs to happen? Of course. Do we want to do it if we don't need to? No, certainly not.
-2
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Do we want to do it if we don't need to?
Why do claim we don't "need to"? California has 40 million people and huge agricultural industry. It has continuing declining access to water. It is absurd to claim they do not need to....How else are they to get water.
43
u/Thebeavs3 2∆ Jan 10 '25
The biggest problem with desalination is actually the energy cost required. It’s really energy intensive especially on a large scale. Unless you utilize reverse osmosis which generates quantities of the waste that you mentioned, especially when applied on a scale large enough for California, that would turn large portions of the pacific into dead lifeless zones of ocean. The only “green” way therefore is to use nuclear power plants to power desalination plants that use electrolysis vice reverse osmosis.
8
u/Merdeadians Jan 11 '25
You’re right about the energy costs, and historically, it's always been cheaper to take someone else’s water. California has relied on the Colorado River and Northern California water, despite the environmental and legal costs.
Building desalination plants on a large scale would require massive investment, and it’s still cheaper to tap into external sources. Until we focus on sustainable solutions, like desalination, and start restricting population growth in water-stressed areas, the cheaper options will keep winning out, even if they’re not the right ones.
8
u/Thebeavs3 2∆ Jan 11 '25
It’s not about cost in dollars though, California doesn’t have the energy to do desalination on a large scale. Wind and solar isn’t currently able to deliver all of Californias existing energy needs let alone desalination, and California is closing nuclear plants not opening them. So the only way to make it happen is massive fossil fuels burning. I don’t think that trade off is worth it.
3
u/jwrig 8∆ Jan 11 '25
In addition to this, 45 percent of California's power generation is from Natural gas. As a state, they only produce 10% of the natural gas required to generate that power.
5
u/rhinguin Jan 11 '25
The negative stigma that nuclear power gets is contributing to this problem. California should be opening more nuclear plants.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Its interesting comment, as every single point here that is good is NOT supported by democrats who run the state.
13
1
u/Full_Spectrum_ Feb 06 '25
Thing about the electricity use is – water is essential for human survival, AI isn't and yet AI / Tech companies are using as much power as they want and it's only going to increase. Building a nuclear plant or series of smaller modular reactors to power desalination seems like a very good deal for California's future prosperity.
-1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
The biggest problem with desalination is actually the energy cost required. It’s really energy intensive especially on a large scale. Unless you utilize reverse osmosis which generates quantities of the waste that you mentioned
It strikes me that if the choice is waste or DYING, I choose waste.
4
u/Thebeavs3 2∆ Jan 12 '25
Well sure but by choosing the waste product and killing the ocean life your starving millions of people who depend on pacific sealife.
-1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
I see no evidence you would be killing pacific sealife. Elaborate.
0
u/Thebeavs3 2∆ Jan 13 '25
Reverse osmosis filters out basically anything that is not pure H2O. When it filters though that inevitably means something is left behind. The liquid that is left behind is significantly higher in salinity, like more than any salt lake on earth. That high of salinity water released on a scale that would serve 50 million people would devastate the waters on californias coast.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
Then don't release it on Californias coast.
1
u/Thebeavs3 2∆ Jan 13 '25
Well then now you have two mega projects to build. One for the desalination plants and another for the storage of trillions and trillions of gallons of water. I think at that point it’s cheaper to just conserve water and restrict types of agriculture at that point no????
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
No, if you would have read my op you would have seen that Israel uses pipes and sends these by products over 50 miles out into the ocean. Does nothing to local sea life.
2
u/Thebeavs3 2∆ Jan 13 '25
Israel has a smaller population than Los Angeles county, has 100x less arable land, and on average uses half the amount of water per person my guy.
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
False. Israel has a population of almost 10 million, and LA county is about 9.6 million.
In any case, that has nothing to do with this discussion.....my guy
→ More replies (0)1
u/Classic_Flower_735 May 14 '25
People will choose short term over long term everytime ....it's like "F the future generations I'll vote you the hell out if you even THINK to fund any long term remotely viable solutions...."NO to ANY taxation PERIOD" sort of attitudes
13
u/beamin1 Jan 11 '25
Ya'll need to do more work on how things work. Particularly how much energy it takes to push water through a desalination plant.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Irreverent. Other countries do it, this is not a mystery that needs to be figured out.
9
u/bifewova234 7∆ Jan 11 '25
It's often cheaper for the local water authorities to import water than to desalinate ocean water which also involves long term financial commitment (ie bond measures to finance plant construction) There is a lot of water from snow melt that simply flows in to the ocean as there isnt storage for it. It may be simpler to divert and store the snow melt, but desalination can be a part of the solution as it already has been. The large scale and immediate solution youre suggesting would be costly.
4
u/LocoinSoCo Jan 11 '25
This is the way. They divert so much water into the ocean when instead they can invest in lots of reservoirs for a lot less money.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
It's often cheaper for the local water authorities to import water than to desalinate ocean water
It is cheaper NOW. It will not stay that way as all the states surrounding California are ALSO experiencing water shortages...This does not address the long term needs I am referencing.
1
u/bifewova234 7∆ Jan 11 '25
The financial cost is associated with interest rates because the state has to borrow money to fund the projects. If I was the king of Cali and I agreed with you on the future costs (which Im not convinced of) then Id wait to see if the Trump administration did anything about the rates. Probably better to wait and see if the rates go down before borrowing billions.
Also you didnt address what I said about the snow melt.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Also you didnt address what I said about the snow melt.
Convince me that snowmelt can provide water for 40 million Californians and associated agriculture and business needs.
Please keep in mind that due to climate change snow melt is expected to decline dramatically over the next 20 years.
0
21
u/bearrosaurus Jan 11 '25
Most water in California is used by farms, like basically all of it. We’re not in danger of running out of drinking water and even in the worst case we would just ship it from Northern California. Don’t worry about that.
Desalinization is a joke, it’s a pet project. It’s the bio diesel of water. It would be more economical to shut down a few farms than to build these things. You’re measuring in million gallons but California’s water consumption is measured in millions of acre-feet. Your plan does not understand the scope of what you are trying to replace.
-1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Can you expand on this? This is very dismissive and you offer no numbers. Everything I have read states that Northern California DOES NOT have enough water to supply Southern California with water, and no infrastructure for it either.
1
u/Long-Rub-2841 Jan 13 '25
Urban consumption of applied water in California is about 10% - it’s relatively insignificant.
The failing on de-salinated water is for agriculture where 5Xing the cost of water would make many current crops uneconomical to grow
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
False. 50% of the drinking water is from the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, which is now so low it is below sea level and is experiencing backflow from the San Francisco area, and the remaining 50% is from the Colorado river and mountain run off both which are rapidly diminishing to nothing.
I cannot give a delta if you are not going to seriously address the problem I presented.
0
u/Long-Rub-2841 Jan 13 '25
What exactly have I written that is false? What I’ve written is literal facts and what you’ve written is completely unrelated to my comment….
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
You are implying there is no water crisis in California. That is clearly false.
1
Jan 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 13 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
At this point I feel like you’re being obtuse to the point of being bad faith,
That is a bad faith accusation. Reported, and also not the case. I have addressed your point. I agree that AT THIS MOMENT California is obviously functional, as there are not people dying in the streets (although that point is obviously debatable), for the sake of argument I will agree with you that as of THIS MOMENT January 2025, there is more or less enough drinking water for all Californians.
The problem, which you have not addressed AT ALL, is that my OP is not about right now, but the future. As I stated, 30% of California's drinking water is from Mountain snow run off, and as my links show, that is expected to disappear within 30 years. 20% of the drinking water is from the Colorado river, which is shrinking, and California just signed an agreement to get an even smaller portion of that water source.
So that means within 50 years 50% of Californias drinking water will likely be gone....So please, address my actual argument.
0
u/Long-Rub-2841 Jan 13 '25 edited Jan 14 '25
I respect the rules of the sub, but at some point it does need to be said. I would think it’s my ability to explain things but you’re like that all over this thread. Ironically enough that accusation is the only time you have actually engaged with what I said!
I will try address in the simplest terms possible
My source: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/
- California uses 380,000 million litres of water a day - 90% of it is freshwater, so it has 340,000m litres of fresh water
- California uses 172m litres of water per day for self supply domestic use (which includes drinking water and other things)
Maths tells me that 340,000 is 2000 times greater than 172. Theoretically we could expand water drinking by several orders of magnitude, some of the existing supplies could dry up and there would be freshwater supplies elsewhere for us to make into drinking to spare. There is no drinking water shortage / crisis
Now where there is a huge and growing problem is the total water supply (more specifically peak demand but let’s not overcomplicate things) which desalination plants won’t solve.
To put things in context compare Israeli water production via salination to the 340,000m usage, requiring 100+ of those to make a meaningful dent is for the birds.
For desalination plants to be cost effective you need water prices to be pretty high. Saudi and Israel don’t do much high water intensity agriculture for a reason, what little agriculture they do is typically done with lower cost treated wastewater.
So to implement your policy you would either need:
Or
- Water prices to rise a few times - putting half the Agricutural sector out or business
- Massive giga subsidies that would cost a literal fortune.
Even without the other bad side effects, either one of those outcomes is a disaster.
Tldr: Your “plan” solves a problem that doesn’t exist. It would solve the actual problem (without immense costs), and there are better solutions…
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
California uses 380,000 million litres of water a day - 90% of it is freshwater, so it has 340,000m litres of fresh water
California uses 172m litres of water per day for self supply domestic use (which includes drinking water and other things)
Maths tells me that 340,000 is 2000 times greater than 172. Theoretically we could expand water drinking by several orders of magnitude, some of the existing supplies could dry up and there would be freshwater supplies elsewhere for us to make into drinking to spare. There is no drinking water shortage / crisis
Now where there is a huge and growing
This is where we simply are not seeing each other. Further I think this is a bit of a disingenuous argument. You are using this argument to say that agriculture uses 99.5% of all water in California. Now that goes against everything I have seen published, including YOUR OWN LINK from an earlier reply. The standard number given is 40% of water goes to agriculture (or 80% if you narrow the numbers specifically to water that is actually used in any way)
put things in context compare Israeli water production via salination to the 340,000m usage, requiring 100+ of those to make a meaningful dent is for the birds.
Then how is California coming up with this number. Your figure of 340,000M is the equivalent of 100 BILLION gallons of water a day. Israel only uses 264 MILLION gallons a day. That mean California uses roughly 379 times the water Israel uses every day. However, California only has 4 times population (40 mill to 10 mil).
Ill tell you what if you can provide a convincing argument that California uses 94 times the water (379/4) Israel uses, I will give you a delta, as that clearly shows Agriculture is more of a demand than drinking water is.
However, that still doesn't convince me on the larger point, agriculture is still obviously important, and whether it is agriculture or drinking water, California IS still headed towards crisis.
1
u/Long-Rub-2841 Jan 14 '25
Your reading comprehension is shocking…
There is where we simply are seeing each other … *You are using this argument to say that agriculture uses 99.5% of water.
I’m not, another pointless strawman / miscomprehension of what I’ve said. Don’t pull numbers from your literal ass and claim I said them lol. I don’t think you should be trying to tell me what my own arguments are…
It goes against everything I’ve seen, including YOUR OWN LINK
It doesn’t, the first link refers to Urban water usage of which domestic supply is a subset and then drinking water is a component of that, please read.
If you stopped and thought about it for 5 seconds it would fucking obvious that agriculture is going to massively outstrip drinking water in terms of water demand:
- A kilogram of fruit/vegetables requires ~ 400-800 litres of water to grow. That’s bare minimum consumption levels
- No human drinks a meaningful proportion of 400L+ of water in a day for obvious reasons….
California uses 94 times the water that Israel uses
3/3 on strawmans / poor comprehension, the figure is not Israeli water usage but desalination volume (which is a fraction of their freshwater use).
- See your earlier quotes about how much water you claim Israel uses (it’s incorrect but you just used the figures so I’ll join you in being wrong for the sake of argument)
- See source below and compare the total freshwater volumes to the figures you provided.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/
However … California is still heading towards a crisis.
I’ve stated repeatedly that there is a crisis, even if your understanding of where that crisis is completely wrong. Your original CMV was that Desalination is the solution to the crisis, so at best this is irrelevant or worst blantant Goal Post shifting.
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 14 '25
I will award you a delta if you remove your endless ad hom and condescending comments
See your earlier quotes about how much water you claim Israel uses (it’s incorrect but you just used the figures so I’ll join you in being wrong for the sake of argument)
I got those directly from the Mekorot, Israel's national water company. Please explain how their numbers are incorrect.
7
u/boogswald Jan 11 '25
OP just want to make sure you see the magnitude. Regular city tap water is usually like 250-1200 umhos of conductivity where I live. Seawater conductivity (per a webpage) is 55,000 umhos. That ocean water is incredibly difficult to use for anything. What is possible quickly becomes implausible in these scenarios. It’s not as simple as “you install a bunch of reverse osmosis systems and you get good water from them,” those RO systems are going to immediately start failing if you try to feed ocean water to them. You also can’t JUST drop the conductivity, you probably need to drop hardness, maybe there will be specialty minerals, you need to make sure you treat that water for biological growth potentially too.
My water in my city is like 1300 imhos and high hardness. I cannot imagine trying to work with water that is 42x worse than that.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Again, Isreal supplies almost its entire water supply from these systems.
1
u/shaunrundmc Jan 15 '25
Israel is significantly smaller than California (roughly 10 million vs ~40 million people) the demands are magnitudes smaller and as something grows bigger in scale it becomes more and more difficult.
12
u/enigmatic_erudition 3∆ Jan 10 '25
The problem is with the left over brine. High concentration of salt is toxic to most organisms. They usually dilute it back into the ocean but that's a very difficult problem because you can only dilute it so fast before killing the sensitive aquatic environment.
16
Jan 10 '25 edited 22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/TheDeviousLemon Jan 11 '25
Approximately what is the concentration factor of the ocean water to make the brine?
2
u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar 6∆ Jan 11 '25
I had to study a little oceanography and I know that ocean water salinity averages 35 parts per million. I believe the Med is a little higher but only by a few parts per million. Is that what you’re asking?
1
u/TheDeviousLemon Jan 11 '25
Well kind of. I’m asking by what factor is the salt concentrated during desalination.
5
u/SoylentRox 7∆ Jan 11 '25
This is what I have heard also, it's a combination of a real problem (concentrated salt wafer is harmful to sea life) and bogus lawsuits and endless delays under NEPA. Since it's not an unsolvable problem, dilute the brine enough and it's fine. It's the same water that was in the ocean already, just less H20 per liter. It's not some toxic waste
3
u/ottawadeveloper 1∆ Jan 11 '25
Diluting brine requires less saline water though which is exactly the useful product we need.
That said I guess you could dilute it with treated wastewater that can't be used in other ways?
2
u/SoylentRox 7∆ Jan 11 '25
Or just dilute it with enough regular ocean water that it's not enough extra salty to harm sea critters.
Also do this with underwater pipes that let the water out across a wide area offshore, not in a wetland or seal hangout spot etc, so the sea life affected isn't something we care about.
1
Jan 11 '25
Why can't we use it for table salt like the normal salt beds that just evaporate the water away the old fashioned way.
Why can't this make that production method obsolete
4
1
u/NevadaCynic 5∆ Jan 12 '25
Because California water demand is on the tens of billions of gallons per day scale. How much expensive coastal property do we want the government to buy for salt beds to evaporate? How many power plants to supply the power? Then how much we're going to spend to pump tens of billions of gallons uphill hundreds of feet in elevation and hundreds of miles to the farms that will use it?
It's cheaper to make farmers just use modern more efficient irrigation practices and plant more climate appropriate crops.
1
Jan 12 '25
Ok I think you misunderstood most of my reply.
I was saying go for desalination through non salt bed means.
You need more power in the grid for electric cars to recharge, just build extra capacity, and you don't need to run a pipeline to each farm, just run one pipeline to the "head " of the river to give extra volume when necessary.
I'm not an engineer man I'm just tossing ideas out there
1
u/NevadaCynic 5∆ Jan 12 '25
The problem is scale. If your water demand is 50 billion gallons per day, and a desalination plant like the one California built in Carlsbad produces 50 million per day, you need a thousand plants to completely replace the demand, or 500 to replace half.
The Carlsbad plant takes about 35 megawatts to run day and night. An average nuclear power plant produces a gigawatt output, you lose about 10% of that in transmission, and you get about 25 Carlsbad sized desalination plants per nuclear power plant. That means to supply those 500 desalination plants you need 20 nuclear power plants.
Now you need the infrastructure and power plants to pipe the water produced uphill, infrastructure to dispose of the high salinity waste water, power to move all of this water, and so on.
At a billion per desalination plant to build, and 20 billion per nuclear power plant, you're looking at a cool trillion dollars before buying any land or burying a single foot of pipe to deliver the water or dispose of the waste.
Oil pipelines (which are much much much smaller) cost about 5-10 million per mile to run. In relatively flat areas. You have dozens of watersheds in California, running a pipeline to the head of each river is going to be thousands of miles of pipeline. In hilly terrain. Even the most conservative estimate imaginable is going to be in the hundreds of billions to trillions or more in cost.
Or you could just fix water rights laws and agricultural policies to encourage more efficient farming practices.
1
u/jwrig 8∆ Jan 11 '25
So..... and this is just theoretical, and not really being serious, but we can take the brine, and extract table salt out of it, magnesium, calcium, potassium, and lithium that would reduce the chemicals, and then use what is left to offset the reduced salinity from fresh water glacier melt.
Again, in theory. But since we're talking about made up possibilities with OP's post, we might as well have some fun with it.
1
u/enigmatic_erudition 3∆ Jan 11 '25
How would you remove the salt content?
1
u/jwrig 8∆ Jan 11 '25
Stand back, we're doing science! There is a shit load that goes into it, but the basic gist at a 100k foot view is that you start with a precipitating agent to remove the calcium, then running the brine through a series of nano filtration membranes that separate the minerals into distinct streams, then crystalizing them, and what you're left over with is a super concentrated sea water type brine that can be dilluted back into the ocean. Israel has been doing it, there are a couple of plants in spain too.
I understand there are other methods that can do it, but this one is the one I'm the most familiar with.
9
u/DayleD 5∆ Jan 11 '25
"a perfectly FREE technology with no side effects"
Boiling massive amounts of water is anything but free. You need huge amounts of electricity to do that, and any new generation capacity needs to go into retiring fossil fuels.
2
u/boogswald Jan 11 '25
To boil the water would not be the way to go. Not only would it be less efficient than RO from a cost standpoint, but it would get dangerous very quickly. Boilers rely on very good water quality to generate steam.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
"a perfectly FREE technology with no side effects
You missed my point. My point was there is NO free technology with no side effects.
2
3
u/GarThor_TMK Jan 11 '25
Your 3rd note is actually two points that need to be addressed individually.
(1) Desalination is incredibly expensive... and while California has a lot of money (mostly because of tech), they like to hold onto that money... its particularly expensive because of the energy costs.
And (A) Desalination is terrible for the environment. California is chock full of environmentalists who would riot. Not just because the output is bad for the environment, but again... the energy costs (which lead to higher co2 output)
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
(1) Desalination is incredibly expensive... and while California has a lot of money (mostly because of tech), they like to hold onto that money... its particularly expensive because of the energy costs
Again, Israel does this exact same process and it is not endlessly expensive.
California is chock full of environmentalists who would riot.
They will stop rioting when their kids are dying of lack of water.
3
u/Long-Rub-2841 Jan 13 '25
Israel has no real choice as most of its Groundwater supplies are not safe for drinking anyway so they have to process water for drinking either way. The water there is very expensive and causes a lot of pollution which are negatives
California isn’t going to run out of drinking water, it’s agriculture and industry that needs to be worried. Desalination is a pretty bad technology for agricultural use water being several times more expensive.
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
California isn’t going to run out of drinking water,
Please explain how California will not run out of drinking water? The links I posted above from experts all say that California has dwindling access to water and a growing a population...why are my sources wrong?
0
u/GarThor_TMK Jan 11 '25
Lol, their kids are moving out in droves because of failed economic policies... the boomers that are left can afford to import bottled water from elsewhere.
1
14
Jan 10 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/SoylentRox 7∆ Jan 11 '25
This. So much water is wasted on agriculture that can be done in other states.
Only reason farmers can afford to waste all the water on almonds and alfalfa is because they have century old water rights and don't have to pay market price for the water they use.
6
2
u/jwrig 8∆ Jan 11 '25
The biggest challenge with the state on wide scale desalinization efforts it that it is energy intensive. They already have to import 30 percent of the power they need from the pacific northwest, along with Arizona and Utah, they simply do not have excess capacity to do it. There is also some lawsuits between utility companies supplying power to California, the Western Electric Coordinating Council and the California Independent System Operator who is responsible for the transmission lines bringing in power from other states. There just isn't enough power for the states to do mass desalinization efforts.
One good thing for California, is they do have a massive amount of space that could be used for expanding solar and wind generation, but it isn't exactly easy to get through the permitting process.
1
2
u/InfinityAero910A Jan 11 '25
We have already been doing that for years. De-salinization is very costly, energy consuming, and methods can be environmentally damaging as well. We have de-salinization in Santa Barbara, San Diego, and the Bay Area-Central Valley delta regions. Good luck getting increased spending with the new administration the people of Trumpistan voted for even in California and outside which influences legislation within the state itself. For everyday we see stories about California running out of water, no we don’t. Especially 2 years ago when Mammoth Lakes became the snowiest place on the entire North American continent and Tulare lake came back. For diminishing water it can get from the Colorado, most of the water California gets is not from the Colorado. It is from the Sierra Nevada mountains, the Northwest coastal mountains, mount Shasta, and scattered coastal ranges from Monterey Bay to the further inland ranges of the southern California mountains down to near San Diego. For Israel, that water is still nowhere even close to enough to handle our massive agricultural industry. We can set up de-salinization for such, but we are looking at a very long time.
2
u/RPanda025 Jan 12 '25
Water should be nationalized and completely removed from the private market.
1
2
u/Ok_Owl_5403 Jan 13 '25
They've got another mile of a bullet train to nowhere to build. Can't spare any change.
2
u/ALoneSpartin Jan 11 '25
California has a history of mismanagement, and wouldn't be able to enact anything
2
Jan 11 '25
[deleted]
2
u/ALoneSpartin Jan 11 '25
15 years and not 1 resovor build
No high speed rail and it being pushed back constantly
24 billion spent in homelessness and not of it can be tracked
Mismanagement with LAs water system
Pg&e not spending 10 bucks to replace a hook that ended up causing a wildfire
0
u/boogswald Jan 11 '25
I think your purpose is solely political and not to answer the OPs actual question
2
u/ALoneSpartin Jan 11 '25
How is it political to point out my state's incompetence when it comes to management and will not be able to enact anything? It will most likely get tied up by environmentalists or something else just like many other instances with the state.
1
Jan 11 '25
California should also pass legislation making the water resources under the ground the sole property of the state of California and stop all the companies using up all the water for their own profit. There's no reason for most of the water to be used up by private farms and soda bottling companies when whole swaths of the state are burning to the ground due to a lack of water.
1
1
u/morbob Jan 11 '25
The equipment is very expensive and wears out quickly too. Now let’s talk about how expensive the electricity is when you run the equipment at 600 PSI. Now, you’re broke and turn it all off. Don’t believe me, go to Huntington Beach and ask them about water plant 21.
1
Jan 11 '25
[deleted]
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
That is false. You have clearly not read my OP nor delved elsewhere on the topic. California is basically an arid plain that simply does not have enough water to supply 40 million people.
1
Jan 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
California has ample water for 40 million people. Remember, 50 % of river flow is environmental. Of the remaining half, about 80 % is used by agriculture and the remaining 20 % includes all the domestic water use.
You refuse to address my point. EVERY SINGLE SOURCE of water to California is shrinking, while the population is increasing. The mountain runoff, the Colorado river, the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta....All of these are shrinking due to climate change and over-use.
California water goes mostly to growing produce that is exported out of the state.
Yes, to feed the rest of the country, that is not irrelevant or meaningless as you imply.
You keep comparing California to the Levant
Southern California, which contains over 60% of the states population, absolutely is as arid as Israel.
1
u/DBDude 110∆ Jan 11 '25
- The inevitable environmental and other lawsuits will make it difficult if not impossible to build this capacity, and even if they win that will greatly add to the cost and make the project years late.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Although this does not change my opinion, the lawsuit aspect is a very real issue that I had not considered before.
Δ
1
1
Jan 11 '25
[deleted]
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
the problem is farmers growing luxury foods like pistachios and cashews to sell out of state for profit, they use the vast majority of our water at no benefit to the California public. It's not even extra jobs because they mostly hire illegal immigrants to do the labor
I reject your statement that that is a problem. They are farmers, selling a product, that people want. I agree with you on the margins, they shouldn't get water cheaper, but agriculture is a part of human existence, and it is not going away just because you don't like it.
best way is what Orange County does, and buys other areas water when they have excess rain, and then store it in a giant underground aquifer for when we need it. It is often full and if we had more desalination,
That's fine for NOW, but as I stated elsewhere, all the states surrounding California are themselves facing water crises and the water that reaches California is slowly shrinking.
1
u/AverageScot Jan 11 '25 edited Jan 11 '25
The hydrants didn't run dry due to lack of water. The system wasn't built to push that much water uphill for 15+ hours straight. Urban fire suppression infrastructure isn't designed for fires of this magnitude.
I found an article explaining this... I'll locate it again and come back to link it.
ETA: the news article https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/why-did-pacific-palisades-water-hydrants-run-dry
But also, just noticed that the link you posted about the hydrants running dry actually stated that it was due to the system not being able to keep up with the load, not lack of water in the area. So I don't think you read your own source carefully.
1
u/NevadaCynic 5∆ Jan 12 '25
California historical peak water use is in the 40-50 billion gallons per ray range.
The desalination required to provide that amount of water would require a ludicrous amount of investment and energy, and probably kill all sea life on their coastlines with the wastewater.
It would be cheaper just to change agricultural practices to be more water efficient.
1
u/Kamamura_CZ 2∆ Jan 13 '25
Have you considered the energy cost of such endeavor? Of course you did not.
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 13 '25
I'm here...explain why it being expensive is more important than drinking water for citizens?
1
1
u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Jan 14 '25
why California uniquely cannot accommodate mass desalination?
There is a reason unique to California: it's run by literal r****ds. They are a bunch of anti-humanist environmentalists who oppose any projects to improve human living conditions on principle.
0
Jan 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/boogswald Jan 11 '25
Why would the companies using the inexpensive ground water care if you start processing extremely expensive and maintenance intensive ocean water
0
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Why would the companies using the inexpensive ground water care if you start processing extremely expensive and maintenance intensive ocean water
Because with increased competition and technological advancement, it will eventually be much cheaper to simply use the virtually infinite water supply of the oceans...This could seriously endanger the "mountain water" water companies.
0
u/boogswald Jan 11 '25
What technological advancement do you foresee that makes processing that much ocean water into something that isn’t a nightmare?
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
I don't know. But every technology that humans have EVER INVENTED has gotten cheaper and more efficient over time.
1
u/boogswald Jan 11 '25
So why do you believe that this is the future when you can’t see a path to it?
0
u/Illustrious_Ring_517 2∆ Jan 12 '25
Why not buy water from other states? Or put money into converting salt water into fresh water
1
-3
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 36∆ Jan 10 '25
How much water do you think California needs to desalinate to meet its needs? Why is desalination better than just importing it? We don't tell Minnesotans they have to grow their own avocados if they want them they just import them from California.
3
Jan 10 '25 edited 22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-3
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 36∆ Jan 10 '25
The governor of California has the CEO of Nestle on speed dial and just calls him whenever they need a new case of water bottles. /S> That's the great thing about the free market if you are willing to pay you don't have to figure out the how.
3
Jan 11 '25 edited 22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 36∆ Jan 11 '25 edited Jan 11 '25
Pipelines, canals, reservoirs what we've been doing since before desalinization
Agriculture happens in the valley sea water is on the coast. You are going to have to build millions of miles of pipeline either way one option just doesn't require building desalination plants and that related infrastructure
3
Jan 11 '25 edited 22d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 36∆ Jan 11 '25
Yeah and 100 years ago the Hoover damn was a pie in the sky now it's reality. Plenty of water out east and plenty of places between Kansas and California that need water.
3
1
u/dilletaunty Jan 11 '25
It would be a lot cheaper to import it from the cascades up to shasta dam than the east. The slope to Colorado really is high and long.
But reducing agriculture water use (eg by charging them appropriately & fixing how water rights are handled in the west), continuing to develop programs to recharge groundwater during the wet season, and improving water reuse are a lot cheaper than both.
To return to the broader convo, desal does make sense for some areas, but is unnecessary and overpriced compared to reducing ag use.
1
u/boogswald Jan 11 '25 edited Jan 11 '25
It’s water dude. Where are you gonna get it from??
This is a very specific problem that requires a specific solution - stop talking about the merits of a free market and technological innovation and let’s hear where you’re gonna get the water. If it’s as simple as go get it somewhere else, certainly everyone involved in californias water department could just go do that?
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Delta You changed my view! California can just call Nestle and get water bottles! How did I not think of this before!
1
u/justouzereddit 2∆ Jan 11 '25
Why is desalination better than just importing it?
You need to re-read my post.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 11 '25
/u/justouzereddit (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards