JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Somewhat correct. Lots of water is where people don't live. Where people want to live, like socal there are no rivers, or natural bodies of water. How stupid is that?
As with anything, there is a happy medium. We need enough water, but not too much or too little. Humans do tend to congregate around rivers and lakes and oceans.

If you look at maps of where humans live and build, it is mostly around water sources (or where water sources were when the area was initially settled).
 
It's not a water issue, it's a population issue and their 'desire' to live the good life. They are their own enemy! How green must your lawn be? The list of questions is never ending but the desire for nirvana will never end. How much water does 'technology toys' require for manufacturing? Do you want to eat and drink, or interact with/to some digital thingy?
 
Somewhat correct. Lots of water is where people don't live. Where people want to live, like socal there are no rivers, or natural bodies of water. How stupid is that?
There is a lot of water in So Cal. It's called the Pacific Ocean. There are numerous methods of desalination; local and state governments need to invest in such because building hundreds more miles of canals to tap distant natural sources of water is no longer viable. Desalination is perfectly viable, not horribly expensive when done on scale, but surely more expensive than current "cheap" sources of potable water. Water is essential to life, who's to say what is expensive when it comes to a life-sustaining resource?

Sewage disposal is another concern that involves water. Local governments such as the City of Los Angeles have large establishments like the Hyperion water treatment facility. These are big investments; there's no reason they couldn't do the same thing for water desalination. It's just that they've gotten by on cheap water for so long that they've been able avoid the issue.

By the way, recycled water from sewage treatment can take the place of some current applications of potable water. On Catalina Island, fresh water is in such short supply that they have two water systems in homes. One for fresh, potable tap water and another for filtered saline water to flush toilets. Catalina has had a desalination plant since 1991, production cost of the water is about $6 per 1000 gallons. The desalination plant on Catalina isn't a large one, only about 2,100 sq. ft. The water is there, it just needs to be paid for.

Water in vast, inexpensive quantities for agriculture is another story.
 
It's not a water issue, it's a population issue and their 'desire' to live the good life. They are their own enemy! How green must your lawn be? The list of questions is never ending but the desire for nirvana will never end. How much water does 'technology toys' require for manufacturing? Do you want to eat and drink, or interact with/to some digital thingy?
Said it before, I will say it again - it is simple math; the population keeps growing, the supply is finite and with water, actually diminishing as we pollute and use the supply of potable water. More people, same or less amount of water, equals less water per person. This trend is not changing. At some point, we run out of water as a whole, for some not insignificant number of people, they are already running out of water and droughts/etc. just show how close the rest of us are to the abyss.

Something else I have said before; regardless of where you stand on the politics and policies, there isn't much you can do about those politics/policies/etc. - what you can do is make preparations on your own personal level to try to insure that you are in a place (both literally and figuratively) where you have enough water to live.

Ignore at your peril.
 
Said it before, I will say it again - it is simple math; the population keeps growing, the supply is finite and with water, actually diminishing as we pollute and use the supply of potable water. More people, same or less amount of water, equals less water per person. This trend is not changing. At some point, we run out of water as a whole, for some not insignificant number of people, they are already running out of water and droughts/etc. just show how close the rest of us are to the abyss.

Something else I have said before; regardless of where you stand on the politics and policies, there isn't much you can do about those politics/policies/etc. - what you can do is make preparations on your own personal level to try to insure that you are in a place (both literally and figuratively) where you have enough water to live.

Ignore at your peril.
As many have said, the only solution to the problem will be natural equilibrium. The population is growing because there is still enough water for the average human to survive and reproduce. Long before we completely "run-out" of water, the population growth will slow and then plateau as water shortages lead to shorter life-spans and less reproduction!

I think the bigger issue as society reaches that "water-equilibrium," will be increasingly severe armed-conflicts as nations/factions/regions try to secure their water supply.
 
One almond takes 3 gallons of gas and one cubic acre of water to produce.






Lol, good enough for me
I'm not sure what you mean by cubic acre, When discussing water, there are acre feet and there are cubic feet.

A single almond takes 1.1 gallons to produce. In 2015 the almond crop consumed 637.56 billion gallons of water in California. Other nut crops like walnuts, hazelnuts, pistachios, and cashews all use roughly the same amount of water to grow as well, but it is the almond which is in such high demand at this time and since 2015 more acreage has been put into almonds.

Fun factoid...Agriculture in California drinks up 80% of its water, while accounting for only 2% of the economy.

-E-
 
I'm not sure what you mean by cubic acre, When discussing water, there are acre feet and there are cubic feet.

A single almond takes 1.1 gallons to produce. In 2015 the almond crop consumed 637.56 billion gallons of water in California. Other nut crops like walnuts, hazelnuts, pistachios, and cashews all use roughly the same amount of water to grow as well, but it is the almond which is in such high demand at this time and since 2015 more acreage has been put into almonds.

Fun factoid...Agriculture in California drinks up 80% of its water, while accounting for only 2% of the economy.

-E-
A very interesting factoid and analysis! Most people are unaware of the total water consumption required to produce just about anything!

Of course, that is not inherently a negative thing; just what is required. Agriculture is inherently water intensive, especially as compared to what we get in return!
 
I'm not sure what you mean by cubic acre, When discussing water, there are acre feet and there are cubic feet.

A single almond takes 1.1 gallons to produce. In 2015 the almond crop consumed 637.56 billion gallons of water in California. Other nut crops like walnuts, hazelnuts, pistachios, and cashews all use roughly the same amount of water to grow as well, but it is the almond which is in such high demand at this time and since 2015 more acreage has been put into almonds.

Fun factoid...Agriculture in California drinks up 80% of its water, while accounting for only 2% of the economy.

-E-
Yea, I have no idea how I confused cubic acres to gallons. Oh, I know, to make a point.
 
Somewhat correct. Lots of water is where people don't live. Where people want to live, like socal there are no rivers, or natural bodies of water. How stupid is that?
Not exactly accurate. There are rivers and natural bodies of water. There's not enough annual rainfall to make them flow. There's also a ton of dams along the Colorado & other rivers.

Quite a lot of water that would naturally fill those rivers, creeks and lakes, are being artificially held back by dams.
A lot of the water is being diverted for agriculture.
Almost none is going back into the aquifers.

Eventually, Arizona, Nevada and S. California will return to deserts.
 
So, here's an elegant solution. "Scientists" swear the oceans are rising and in 50 years coastlines will dramatically change due to this "drowning" cities like NY, NO, etc. We build large coastal desalination plants...I mean we suck up that ocean water by the billions of gallons, convert it to freshwater to drink or at the very least...agriculture... We have an inexhaustible supply of water and we keep the sea level rise in check.
Don't give me a bunch of technological excuses, we put men on the moon nearly 50 years ago.
Brutus Out
A better solution:

Build a dam under the Golden Gate Bridge to raise the water level in the bay by 14 feet. Within a relatively short time the bay becomes the largest fresh water lake in the US. Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield become beachfront property. We have unlimited fresh water supplies and recreational opportunities.

Of course, we'd lose that portion of SF that was built out on man made fill during the post gold rush era, and we'd lose places like Antioch and Pittsburg, but that would be a plus overall.
 
I will restate, there are no natural bodies of water in socal, what rivers there are, are seasonal. It was always desert there.
Southern California has a number of ground water aquifer basins. Which have been under management since 1959. In the 1940's and 50's, flood control projects paved over many of the seasonal rivers. Lately, work has been undertaken to restore sections of some rivers to help recharge aquifers with storm runoff. This is part of an overall management plan, each little piece of which is a good idea. But the population load on So. Calif. is such that effective management of local resources will never be adequate. Hence the need for other sources of potable water. Which up until now has been importation from distant regions which historically had surpluses. The adequacy of that is coming to an end. New solutions will have to be found. Money will have to be spent.

People live where they want to live. The need to live in a place where work may be found is a strong driver of where people want to live. So. Calif. has the attraction of mild climate. They only have two seasons, warm and not as warm. But if climate change bumps temperatures up to 125 degrees F like some places in the middle east are now seeing, that may be a disincentive. But, Oh, I don't know. I've been out to Needles, Calif. where temperatures get so hot that people put aluminum foil in their windows to reflect the heat. Yet they still live there, for some un-Godly reason.
 
I'm pretty sure that people drink a cup of water and then they p a cup of water. No water is destroyed in the process. The exited solution will filter naturally if it's committed to nature.

Running out of water is an imagined problem that doesn't really exist.
Indeed. We cannot increase or decrease the amount of water on planet earth. Less water here means more there. It does not rain salt water, so clearly there is no crisis with fresh flowing into salt. The world would have perished from salinity eons ago if that was the case.

What I wish there was, is a shortage of doomsayers.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top