Most of the fresh water usage in the world is agricultural once you stop using rivers to dilute waste effluents.

I don't know how typical Northern and Central California is; but these areas face impending water shortages. So our State Legislature in a rare exercise of bipartisanship just passed a water bill to deal with future needs. There was lots of credible publicity surrounding this effort but one fact that stood out was that 80% of the water currently used in the affected areas is used by agriculture. Eliminate all the other uses, cities, industry, residential, energy, etc. and you've only dropped the demand by 20%.

So the answer is that the technology needs to focus on agriculture and the customers for agricultural products if that is the answer. (Vegetarian protein substitutes, anyone?). Either increase the sources of agricultural water or change the crops in some way that they will use less water for a given level of production.

I'd put my money on agricultural water conservation rather than new transport systems or desalinization. But I have long term view. Trouble here is that California has chosen transport over conservation in a big way because transport is a sure thing we can do right now (reservoirs and canals). Real conservation depends on technologies that simply cannot be forced to be successful in a required time frame.

Perhaps the biggest change could come from getting people to alter their tastes in food. Perhaps the answers lie in the world of molecular biology.

Ed Weldon

Yes.You are right Ed. Most of the fresh water is used in agriculture. If we use drip and ultra low drip technology and several other water conservation techniques ,a substancial amount of water can be saved with a reasonably low investment compared to transportation and open storages like dams and canals. We have most part of our earth covered with oceans. Evaporation due to solar energy constantly returns a part of this water in the form of rain. But unfortunately most of this rain water flows back to the ocean or lost due to evaporation. If we adopt rain water harvesting extensively, and store water underground either natural or artificial way, we can raise the water table and people can get water without much loss in evaporation and transportation. Water used in cities and towns can be reused for agricultural purposes in and around the cities as is already done in Israel. Most importantly, we have to sensitize our people in conservation. For example if we take bath in a shower ,we use only 30% of water as compared to pouring water by mug and only20% compared to using a tub.

Jobs, crime, and now their going for your freedom.

You see, people want things fixed. The conditions are barely tolerable. No one wants to be poor, no one wants to see their kids getting killed on the streets, there's got to be a solution, and the politicians are quick to offer it, unless you have a problem with giving up some of that freedom of yours… No secret cameras in you bathroom or microchips under the skin. No, none of that. Just vote the right guy, vote the right legislators, and let them take care of things. They need your approval, nothing more…

And one day you wake up and are ruled by a very nice man that the majority voted. He's got more power than any previous president in history. Supposedly there was no other way out of the mess, but it turns out that they are repeating the same mistakes that landed you there in the first place.

The thirst for power grows, nothing gets solved, and its hard to see light at the end of the tunnel.

What do people in Venezuela feel, when they watch on TV their president telling them that they have 3 minutes maximum to take a shower and they should use flashlights at night when getting up to go to the bathroom?
Does it get to such a ridiculous point where even that feels normal?

The stages are just something to organize the chain of events. They sometimes overlapped each other, some were longer than others, but that's what happened here.

Unfortunately it seems USA is following a similar pattern. There's differences of course, but its foolish not to see some of the similarities, blinded by pride and shame, when realizing there are indeed some similarities with a 3^rd world country.

Who are you, "guest", and why do you stick your nose in here with a political diatribe that has little to do with the topic at hand? ..... Ed Weldon

Water is a permanent chemical. Very little is destroyed and very little is synthesised.

One kg of rice grain represents 2000 litres virtual water (water used for irrigation). Countries like India should relook at exporting such virtual water.

The South Indian metropolis Madras had very severe urban water shortage till the state government made rain water harvesting mandatory. Situation improved dramatically in less than a decade.

The South Indian State of Kerala is a narrow strip on the Sothwest coast. It gets copious monsoon rains. Tragically, 80% of it reaches the Arabian sea within 90 minutes.

Conservation and improved agricultural practice are probably better solutions for th developing nations.

What can California learn from Australia, where large areas face high water stress every year?

Technology CANNOT solve the water shortage problem, or any other resource shortage. (Sorry to sound like a prophet of doom.)

The problem is that mankind through increasing population and increased "utilisation" is finding ways to use and abuse what is available and then sees this created shortage as "the problem".

Population on earth, consumption patterns and lifestyle are the cause of "the problem", and really that means that technology and our affluent desires (greed) are what needs to be fixed.

No matter what "technologological" answer to the current situation is found, we (mankind) will find a way to need just that little bit more.

The problem rather is a sociological one. We need to be satisfied with what we have and respect it rather than exploit it.

There is already tension between Syria and Turkey as a consequence of some dams that have been built in Turkey across rivers that drain towards Syria, reportedly.

Indeed there are. I can attest to such tensions personally, although not between Turkey and Syria but rather between Turkey and Iraq. But I'm sure Syria is feeling the same thing since they are up-stream of Iraq on the Euphrates.

Both the Euphrates an Tigris rivers flow from Turkey into Iraq, the Euphrates cutting through Syria in the process and the Tigris skirting along Syria's northeastern boarder. However, 'flow' is a stretch when describing the movement of the water.

I have walked along both rivers recently while deployed to Iraq and, at a slow tactical pace, I moved almost twice as fast as the rivers did. The flow of these rivers has been significantly reduced by Turkey.

At one point, while Turkey was building one of its many dams, the Atah-turk (sp?) one if I recall, it 'turned-off' to Euphrates for about a month. Considering that the majority of the total volume of that river originates in Turkey and only a small percentage in Syria, it was quite a hit to both Syria an Iraq.

Also, the environmental impact of a dam is also negative. Generally the water that is released from the reservoir upstream of the dam is generally taken from the bottom. Prior to a dams construction the downstream plant and animal life developed based upon existing water temperature and oxygen content. Where a river's oxygen content and temperature are pretty consistent, a reservoir's varies from surface to bottom. Once the dam is constructed down stream water conditions change as a result. If the dam is used for any type of power generation, the natural sediment content is also removed in the process increasing erosion conditions downstream.

Bottom line, Turkey is just one example of how water is used as a weapon - whether intentionally, or unintentionally. It's most recent endeavor, the Ilisu Dam, is one such example. Indeed, water supply vs. demand, is and will continue to be an issue. The seriousness of the issue will continue to worsen and yes, wars between nations are a viable result.

With an issue this large and important, it's not just agriculture, it's not just technology, it's not just consumption habits, it's all of them and more. This is a real issue, life as we know it depends on water. Whether you believe in climate change issues or not, whether you're a tree-hugger or not, whether you drive an SUV or peddle a bicycle... we can debate the morality of your decisions all day. But if you let the water run while you shave, brush your teeth, or soap-up in the shower, or still use a top-load washing machine, you're just plain irresponsible.

JavaHead

It is a worth topic not only in the CR4 forum but also the entire humanity to look up on it.

*The issue calls for contributions from all stake holders connected in the issue by way of,

1]Consumers,

2]Storage and distributing parties,

3]Technological contributions.

2/3 of the globe being of water, there is nothing to bother that water short falls will bother humanity.

*It is merely the question of more fresh water for increased misuse.

Few of the such misuses are-excess water consumption, reliance on water for all washing purposes, MISUSE IN HUMAN TOILETS, reliance on steam energy and so on.

*Efficient and cost effective waste water treatment and appropriate recycling is another mile stone to reach- that could be best answered by water treatment technologies, including low cost desalination.

* The next part is the part on storage systems that, that most of the rain water falling on land is allowed to go back to sea as un stored run off and flood water.

All the current water storage systems like dams. lakes and reservoirs are all depending on gravity flow filling and due to limitation of holding capacities vast fresh rain water is let to sea un saved.

This calls for strategic alternative reserve storage planned in remote areas so as to release at times of need.

This is to play in co ordination of rivers inter connectivity so that maximum water is used out. Even the estuary prior stages water can be riveted to remote area uses.

*It becomes inevitable for strategic storage and distribution of rain water without direct flow to sea. That means in addition to reservoir gravity based storage, we should plan on PUMPING UP BASED ABOVE GROUND LEVEL ARTIFICIAL STORAGE RESERVOIRS.

*One more major aspect is about retrieval of rain water directly falling into the sea. It is estimated that about 90 % of rain water falls back on sea. Collection strategies, conduction, storage and distribution of this water should me much much more cheaper than costly desalination technologies.

*This above head storage is another major answer to the garbage handling issues also.

*All these pumped storage systems depend on low cost electricity which needs technology enhancement.

To sum up ,this issue needs a multi end co operation approach from all stake holders vis- public and industrial and agricultural consumers[effective water use in agriculture], storage and distribution public departments, electricity provisions, technology developers and engineers,water utilization culture including alternatives, global co ordination , policy makers and governments.

Not only the water issue but also a broad minded solution approach intra national and international in all aspects of our current global issues need a matured handling and contributions for permanent solutions.

*Effective distribution of resources and uniform availability in all parts of the planet should be the motto of the present and future generation culture.

It means water to remote dry lands, land reformation in deserts and agriculture in desert lands etc.

That may sound tough, but we humans got to rethink on improving mutually by sharing and positive spending for global betterment instead of racial conflicts and arming our territories.

It should be the purpose and goal of HUMANITY, EDUCATION and STYLE OF HUMAN LIFE ON THIS GLORIOUS PLANET EARTH..

Technology can relieve the water shortage issue. The question is, who is going to pay for it?

With regards to capturing rainwater, the most effective means is reforestation. Trees slow down the runoff sufficiently to allow the ground to absorb it. Surface reservoirs have a maximum capacity above which any impinging water is just allowed to overflow, essentially running off to sea un-used. Reforestation can significantly enhance groundwater storage, prevent erosion and mitigate flooding.

As to California's problems, when they stop growing rice in the desert of California, a good part of their water problem may go away...

c_warner7 11 -- there's not much hope for getting "California to quit growing rice in the desert". In the recent legislation I spoke of the farmers got everything they asked for and gave up nothing. The city folks will be expected to "swallow" the water quality and environmental degradation and figure out how to get along on less of the 20% of water they now get from the CA central valley and delta. All the farmers need now is for the voters to pass approve the bond issues needed to pay for the infrastructure. This is far from a done deal......But the promoters of this program did a shrewd thing. They tied levee repairs into the deal and are stoking the fears of disaster if the bonds aren't approved.

Ed Weldon

Actually the cultivation of rice has dropped due to restrictions on the burning of the stubble....

most central valley farmers are moving away from flood irrigation towards drip irrigation.

For farmers as the price of surface water [highly subsidized] increases, conservation becomes more viable. Farmers are going to do what ever makes the most sense economically.

Of all the post so far #2 strikes the essential of the issue, with our sphere of influence concerning water there is no more or less at any point in time.

It is only in the age of technology that major population centers develop in areas without water sources to sustain growth.

For most water and work have much in common in order to use it you have to go where it is.

However for much of the globe were technology to solve the ground water pollution issue the water shortage would also be eliminated.

If we allow water to evaporate it then returns to the surface as rain in effect no loss. If it drains to the sea it evaporates and returns as rain again no loss.

If used then allowed to settle in ponds and seeps into soil it returns the water table but some is contaminated HERE is the water issue, contaminated water unfit for consumption; technology Here is your target.

As far as natural rain water collection and conduction systems like rivers, canals are concerned no water is free from contamination,-either surface or ground water. All the currently used waters are in one way or other are bound for some sort of contamination say-Dissolved or suspended solids and we have no control over that.

Current consumption is based on this contaminated water only.

As per your post, it means you are concerned about purest water ,totally free of contaminations or traces. Do you mean this for drinking water safety or a pre condition for all class uses ? Is there any existing method for such a pure water collection and storage?

Certainly you are correct.

The contamination I refer to is that which has occurred during and since the industrial revolution where ground water sources previously potable have since been reduced to non-potable or needing purification to be returned to previous potable quality level for consumption. This would include vast amounts globally as contamination is profuse.

My question is cannot technology produce a non-aqueous solution which can be a substitute for water now used in industrial processes?

The non aqueous substitute what you are referring already exists.

AIR is the cheapest and best answer.

GA to Just an Engineer. I agree with just about everything you said. Please don't misinterpret what I posted in reply #1. I don't approve of dams and canals to give farmers all the water they want so they can export farm produce producing little more economic activity than several semiconductor fabs. It's simply that is today's political reality in California.

My position here is that the technology that will do the most to save water for reasonable human and natural environment preservation use will be those technologies that reduce agricultural water consumption.

To me the short term approaches include those which can detect actual requirements of small areas of the farm and selectively deliver just the right amount of water of the required quality. This is given the reality of subsurface soil contamination by dissolved minerals in the water like selenium in California. To that I would add the conservation of water by urban and suburban populations of which there are numerous opportunities such as the ones you suggest.

In the mid term I look to genetic engineering to develop plant varieties that require water in smaller quantities and are more tolerant of low water quality.

In the long run we need technology to alter our consumption habits for agricultural products that require heavy irrigation. It is in this area that I believe biochemistry will provide new products, food, clothing, building materials, fuels and other consumer items that have lower impacts on water usage.

By the way, just so you know where I'm coming from, we have lived in a rural dry area of the California Santa Cruz Mountains of Northern California; same house for 35 years. Water conservation is a way of life for us. Winters we run around 150-200 gallons/day and summers that goes up to 300-350/day with my extravagant use of water to irrigation what is strictly a hobby garden. My water source is a good well that didn't get drilled until about 7 years after we moved here. Our first well when we moved here turned salty (mostly sodium sulphate) after a few months and was good for little more than bathing, flushing toilets and washing diapers. We survived on the 35 gallons of fresh water I hauled in daily from 30 miles away in a tank that sat on the back seat of my aging Plymouth Valiant and twice weekly Laundromat trips.

Ed Weldon

It's simply that is today's political reality in California.

Political and reality are two terms I find hard to use together but in California?

My position here is that the technology that will do the most to save water for reasonable human and natural environment preservation use will be those technologies that reduce agricultural water consumption.

I can't understand your position Ed, are you thinking the evaporation that occurs from open irrigation is a loss of water? In what way? Agriculture conserves water resources there is little waste, though I know this is a politically motivated argument the fact remains food grows where water flows.

Stop the flow and wait five years then observe the natural environment. The survey of the Central Valley of California and other areas by John C. Frémont will provide details of the natural; that which will prevail if the natural environmental conditions are present.

In the long run we need technology to alter our consumption habits for agricultural products that require heavy irrigation.

You are scaring me with this bent on restricting food items we enjoy in addition to already having reduced the nutrition value. I think the "guest" is onto something too about a big take away, does not this seem in reverse of the ideal? We can not effectively manage the ecosystem without depriving mankind? I'm very uncomfortable with this avenue of approach to the subject and I can't understand with the understanding of human metabolic requirements that this sort of conjecture will prevail. Why is it seemingly perverse to consider that mankind should live within its means?

The reality is farmers pay nowhere near the cost of the the surface water they use

just the cost of the infrastructure [dams, canals, gates, pumps] alone would substantially raise their costs.

I can't understand your position Ed, are you thinking the evaporation that occurs from open irrigation is a loss of water? In what way? Agriculture conserves water resources there is little waste, though I know this is a politically motivated argument the fact remains food grows where water flows.

That old saw is catchy, but simplistic

surface transportation & irrigation of water is very wasteful.

Evaporation is substantial when the temperature is 100+ & the humidity is 10% or so.

California is not Dakota or where ever "the upper midwest" is? It only rains 3 or 4 months out of the year, 10"-15" per year.

California farmers have suckled at the teat of both the state & federal government [subsidized surface water] for the better part of the last century. Is that the job of government in your view?

Drip irrigation reduces consumption & reduces selenium build up in the soil.

Reducing the consumption of beef would reduce the gallons of water used per pound of food consumed. Sounds like increased efficiency to me.

But evaporation isn't a loss of water only redistribution much like redirecting a river system into a canal and then to another destination like Southern California.

I can't imagine the expense of covering all the canals and ponds/small lakes etc. included in the California aqueduct system as efficient. How high must the cost of food rise, how many children need go hungry.

Creating a limited residency in certain areas seems like water conservation to me.

How much water could be saved if the fire department let the brush fire burn, create a burn safety area every spring and let the remainder burn if it catches fire like the previous inhabitants practiced.

You didn't answer the direct question now did you?

Should welfare be extended to farmers forever?

Whether or not the answer is yes we need to complete the job by draining the excess metal salts [selenium] from the sub soil & piping them out to the ocean as planned originally, further the canals need to be lined & covered. Flood irrigation is not a long term sustainable farming practice...

most of the dams [& the lakes they form] are on federal land of one sort or another. The power companies & the farmers are in no way paying anything [let alone fair market value] to lease these lands & are being given a gift by all of us [the federal government].

You are always quick to fire off a few quick platitudes about issues in my state & don't even have the courtesy to identify which state you live in.

See post 24.

The direct question, farmers are subsidized to insure a balance of trade or that our farmers are on top of the game so yes we will continue the trend.

I live in what's called the icebox in winter and where the mosquito is the state bird.

checkout this ditty: http://www.supload.com/listen?s=O5Wovb

A lot of water is released up here so barges filled with grain float down the Mississippi river.

As expected you didn't answer the question.

water & farm subsides are similar, but not the same.

The domestic use spoilage of water is no less to industrial abuse. Just take an account of water consumption in toilets- the figure will be alarming nation wise, daily, weekly, monthly and annual.

Substantive debate of this topic could fuel another thread...would be interesting if any purposeful conclusions would be forth coming.

In addition to low-flow systems other conservation themes include composting and incinerating toilets.

What would your choices include?

A point on low flow toilets. They do not work well for people who because of their physical size and/or the amount of food they consume a 1.5 gallon flush cannot do the necessary job of clearing the toilet bowl.

But all in all I think the opportunity for water conservation in toilet flushing is small compared with other opportunities.

That said I think there is a possible market in developed nations for properly designed toilets with simple and easy to work flush volume controls. There are lots of people in areas with water shortages that would take advantage of such devices in their homes to save money on water bills rather that the simple and somewhat distasteful practice of not flushing. I don't believe a $1000 computer controlled toilet is the right product for this market.

Nor do I think I'm ready to be convinced that composting and incinerating toilets are a practical answer to water shortages until the water availability in cities (where human waste can simply be discarded in the local environment) drops to near zero. I think people will forego dishwashing or bathing first. Look at how you behave on recreational camping trips for some clues on how we in our culture would behave when the water is turned off and all we have would come in gallon containers.

Ed Weldon

Isn't a municipal wastewater treatment plant, just composting?

LA sends the partially composted over the hill to kern county, which are then aged for a few months, bagged & sold by kellogs as compost, which are described as biosolids lol

A simple 2 level mechanical flush system, would work.

Geez Ed, what kind of Santa Cruzian are you, no flaming or composting toilets?

bwire -- I don't know how it is where you live; but in most of the West brush fire and wild land fire suppression uses a trifling amount of water. Except in rare instances where wild land fires reach areas serviced by city water mains water is put on fires either by air drops or from water tanks on vehicles driven to the fire area. This latter method is usually used for fire suppression near the initiation point near highways, a common occurrence out here. Very seldom is there surface water available to be drawn by fire fighting vehicles this being a dry summer region.

Air drops out here from helicopters typically use a 500 gallon bucket. In an hour of firefighting the choppers can usually make between 5 and 10 drops. Occasionally larger fixed wing tanker aircraft are available. These may carry 750 to (rarely 2000 or 3000 gallons); but since they can't drop a bucket in a nearby lake like the choppers and must return to an airport they are down to 2-4 drops per hour. Seldom do more than 10 or 15 aircraft work even the biggest fires which may last upwards of 2 weeks. Usually it is 2 to 5 water carrying aircraft because that is all that are available.

Now consider that there are perhaps several million homes in California that put 50-100 gallons of water on their grass lawns each day from the spring until the late autumn and then run the numbers. Maybe in the worst day of the California fire season aircraft and fire support vehicles in service in the entire state can put 2 million gallons (12 acre feet) on fires. This scenario likely doesn't exist more than 30 days in even the worst fire years.

Thus I think my use of the adjective "trifling" above is appropriate........Ed Weldon

Ed,

I've known well a few smoke-jumpers and members of the fire departments of various areas when I lived in California nine years in Ventura county and another eight in Kern county before heading to Idaho. And I've lived in the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico too. I am familiar with firefighting on shipboard also having fought engine room fires etc..

I've been evacuated out of camping areas a few times that really sucks, fire season parallels camping season.

Been in your neck of the woods a time or two, pretty country...

I'm thinking farmers should have responsibility in how water is used and the ramifications of run-off etc.. We have to insist they provide and maintain lined sumps allowing for removal of salts before water is returned to the aquifer or sea.

California could learn from Arizona about restriction of irrigated lawn size and use of rock and natural arid fauna instead of fescue.

The impression I get from what I see and hear in the local news is that the farmers in California have had several tough years financially what with the reduced rainfall and the state of the economy. Result is a lot of them, especially on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, are hard pressed to come up with the capital needed to make any system improvements such as new water saving methods. They're having a hard enough time just keeping their businesses going. More than one almond orchard has gone to the chain saws.

We talked a bit about reality. It really has two meanings. One meaning is what is physically real in the present time frame. The other meaning has to do with what's happening in the human consciousness and in the current vernacular how close this reality in minds matches physical reality. The problem with California politicians (and of course their polarized constituencies is that those two realities are not in sync.

For the farmers, either the small to moderate family operations or the large corporate ones, there is no credible reality beyond the period of the current crop and whether the water supply and the weather will lead to a decent payday. The city folks don't care about anything but the latest howls out of the environmentalists. As far as they're concerned food comes from "da supermarket". Their reality is somewhere hovering in the ether between them and the video displays they watch. Can you really expect any long term rational thinking to come out of that combination?

Not really. Only economics and the demon randomness of life will drive the final outcome. Meantime I'm thinking that the first biochemist that figures out how to turn corn starch and beans into something that tastes and chews like sirloin steak is going to become a billionaire.

Ed Weldon

Farming is expensive, all that equipment costs a bundle and another bundle to maintain.

California could get the couch potatoes and unemployed out in the fields with and unemployment insurance extension as an incentive I don't see that happenning...

Cutting fruit/nut trees is a normal cyclic event though not to be alarmed, the trees only live so long.

Taste and flavor yes but will it also compare in protein? The average person could consume vegetables all day and not receive the amount of protein in a bacon cheeseburger sandwich.

Most of us get far more protein in our diets than we need.

CA couch potatoes working in the fields? There is no way they could compete with the folks who do that work now.

I didn't say the chemist's job would be easy. But, after all, cattle in the middle of the process are able to change corn into protein. The trick is doing it in a factory process. We just don't how to immitate all that goes on between the horns and the tail without all the water that requires.

I know orchard replacement is cyclic. Trouble is they are not planting new trees because of the water shortages last couple of years. I think that is mostly on the West side of the Valley.

Garth -- Have I got that right. You're closer to there than I am.....

Ed Weldon

I try not to consume hot grain regimen beef because of acidity of the meat, some grain is fine but grazing produces a more healthful product.

The water is an essential to our diet too and cattle recycle it well also.

I recall some orchards west but many central too.

If water is restricted from returning to the atmosphere there may not be a sufficient return of the snow-pack?

Being from a rural region of the country I see water conservation differently than typical city and more urban people do.

One. Don't live on top of each other! There is only so much local resources available. When you use them up you have to transport them in from some place else. This transportation requires more cost and effort the further away it gets.

Two. Think about what part of the cycle you are tapping into for your source. Some should not be used or at least be limited in what part is being used. But others can be fully reclaimed with no ill effect. Pumping a river dry to water everyones lawn is stupid. Catching the vast amounts of water that fall on an average size city can add up to days and even weeks of usable water for public use with only minor treatment and filtering.

Three. Don't live where the resources are not available. If you live in a dessert don't complain about why your crops don't grow and why water costs so much. If your not smart enough to make that simple connection your part of the overall problem.

Four. What water shortage? We have a planet thats surface is mostly water and its natural cycles dictate that the total volume is fixed and 100% recycled by nature. Use nature to to the work. Think about it.
Government politics, environmental politics, basic stupidity and ignorance do not make it an actual shortage. It makes it all self inflicted problems. Not naturally occurring ones.

Five. Sea water is not difficult to desalinate and convert into high quality drinking water. And its even easier to convert into lower grades of non potable but still high quality irrigation water that is more than acceptable for farming and ranching usage. The cost is higher but thats in many cases is simply due to the present lack of strong competition and the limited efforts that have been put into developing better methods of reclaiming it so far. With better energy management of the desalination process its likely that the process can be made much more energy efficient and possibly far faster. This is where technology can make a huge difference in how the available quantity and quality of water could be greatly increased while still reducing the overall cost in the end.

Over all it is a complex issue but there are many things than can be done to improve the overall problems at hand. Unfortunately many people and ways of doing things will need to be changed in order for it to ever work properly.

Quoting tcmtech -- "Five. Sea water is not difficult to desalinate and convert into high quality drinking water."

Of some interest may be the work of Saltworks Technologies of Vancouver, BC.

http://www.saltworkstech.com/about.php

Their process is the subject of an article in the October 31 issue of the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14743791

It is interesting in its general simplcity; but in my opinion application in developed nations may be limited by the amount of land surface area needed to build a large sized facility. This is especaially true where proposed concentrating ponds may be created by replacing environmentally valuable natural wetlands.

Ed Weldon

Just stick them out in the nearist dessert!

Much dessert land is completely useless as any practical humanly habitable land and does not support most types of farming without great volumes of water.

Use the process and land resources together. Create limited areas of viable farm land thats suited to growing low water usage crops. The remainder of the treated water can be then sent to the near by urban centers that need it.

Normaly unusable land gets made into usable land and no marsh land habitats need to be destroyed. Plus no valuable urban land is used in the process which will make it that much cheaper to implement.

Actually there is a pretty good area for that around the northern shores of the Sea of Cortez. The tides are extreme there, but actually that tidal energy could be captured for use in generating needed electrical power for the installation. If available irrigation water from the Colorado river for Imperial Valley agriculture drops due to climate change this might be a good answer, especially for Mexican farming operations in the border region around the Colorado River delta marshes (where a lot of our winter produce comes from).

Ed Weldon

<...Sea water is not difficult to desalinate and convert into high quality drinking water....>

Difficult, no, though it is rarely economic in places where surface- and borehole-water with sufficiently low salt concentrations is available. For these sources, the unit conversion cost will usually be less than the cost of desalinating seawater to provide the same volume of potable.

In some locations, and heavily-populated islands with low rainfall fall into this category (Cyprus, for example), it may be the only technique available that can provide sufficient potable water. (Likewise with ocean-going vessels and offshore platforms.)

Notable point Sir. Cost effective desalination technologies are not yet evolved. Thanks to the membrane technology that spares drinking8ng water to all of us. Mass scale desalination is feasible only as no option places like Gulf countries and rest of the world is relying on rain water source only.

Nature by way of solar evaporation , condensation as RAIN is gifting us with absolutely free of cost. If we could divert the over flow excess water from dams to diversion storage dams[ possibly above land surface] by way of strategic pipe line gravity transport, this could be major salvation to improved water distribution.

If this concept becomes a reality, it could be a genuine opening of new ERA in water management system. We have to establish alternate approaches in this direction.

Low cost desalination also calls for lot of scope and opportunities as technology option to handle water issues. An abundant and safely occurred saline water with its natural gift of recycling by evaporation and condensation, a rarity on solar system.

We must effectively manage and share for the benefit of entire humanity who are away from gravity flow path. This applies to lot of developing countries including AFRICA,

It's interesting where this is heading.

Everything old is new again.

Composting toilets are practical in modern times. The university campus at Albury in NSW has only got composting toilets for the whole campus and dormitory sections and has been operational for some years now. Students, staff and visitors have no difficulty coping with this "revolutionary" stuff, however I remember in the late 60's helping prepare the next pit for our farm toilet that was merely another form of composting toilet.

By the way, toilet flushing in typical "modern" household represents around 35% of total household water use including garden and washing down paths with hose.

I'd like to challenge that 35% usage number for toilet flushing. What average toilet flush volume is that based on? 5 gallons? 3-1/2 gallons? 2 gallons? Average number of people per house? More people means less water for outdoor uses per person.

How practical are these modern waterless toilet designs with respect to maintenance requirements? Present "Crapper" technology is essentially maintenance free except with respect to esthetic preferences.

What is your experience in the "Land of Oz"?

Ed Weldon

GA!! Now I believe your numbers. You folks are a lot better at water conservation than most of us. Looks like your survey members are running in the neighborhood of 80-100 gallons per family per day. That compares with an average of 300 per day per single family home in California with no water restrictions in place. Pretty obvious we can all do a lot better here and should be ready to follow your Australian example when we get in a serious drought.

Sounds like the dry toilet technology has matured well in your area. Would be a hard sell in US suburbs but may not be as far fetched as it seems if global warming causes severe water shortages here. First people that see this problem may be some of my neighbors up on the hill tops with wells that are marginal.

Is there possibly a link to the detailed numbers of the survey done by your high school students? This could be quite instructive to some of us.

Ed Weldon

Dry toilet technology is feasible in 80% of residential dwellings in the USA. The composting toilet types are feasible in 80% of single family dwellings in the USA.

Do you think employing the dry toilet technology would cause a significant relief of our burdened sewage systems and ease landfill volumes; food wastes, also? Maybe we could kill three birds with one stone??

I remember renting an old farm house in tornado alley about twenty years ago, it had three baths and each toilet used 9 gallons per flush. With three women in the house I was glad the bill was a flat rate.

Some grey water reuse for landscaping wouldn't hurt either

anybody ever run across any 3"-6" electrically operated 3 way valves? I'd love to be able to divert the washing machine discharge in the summer [not so good in the winter,ice], I think you can see where I'm going.

separate Black & gray water systems would also ease the burden on the waste water systems.

My sister is an environmental engineer for a city in the suburbs of Boston, segregating the storm sewers from the sanitary sewers, was one tool they used for reducing the cost of compliance w/ever tightening sewage treatment discharge water quality rules... Another whole kettle of fish to talk about.

Garth -- The first part of the discharge line from your washing machine is what amounts to a short length of garden hose (suitable for hot water) A simple manual valve or two in a 3/4 or 1 inch line near the washing machine could divert that water to a plastic storage drum outside the house.

The second valve would only be needed to shut off the line to the sewer connection if there was too much head loss in the line to the drum causing some of the water to flow toward the sewer connection. You would probably do well to investigate or actually test the pressure vs flow characteristics of the washing machine's pump to make sure the water would all get pumped out before the next cycle starts.

If you live on a sloping lot and want to irrigate the area down slope you've got an ideal situation.

Here's another trick. We have a raised deck off our family room that has plants in containers. I store stuff underneath; so to keep it dry I attached corrugated sheet metal at a slight pitch under the deck, sealing around the posts with a gutter and downspout at the edge of the metal "roof" line.

In the summer dry season the runoff water from the potted plants is diverted to a small garden below the deck. Come the winter rains it goes directly to my main drainage system with a small easy to do manual change in the pipe direction.

Ed Weldon

Sure

I actually have in mind to run a 2nd drainline parallel, right from the dry break [washing machine] for the garden next spring. just switch the hose between the drybreaks.

I live in a modular on a slope, not too hard for the washing, machine dishwasher a 2" electric or 3way ball valve is real money for my present budget

I did a bit of poking around w/an eye towards starting a small business, not enough documentation to lead a planning department by the hand, they hate anything that would cause them to have to think or actually do their jobs.

The whole situation is alot like alternate energy stuff, doesn't make sense until the basic commodity price is high enough for decent ROI

another little brain storm that's swirling around is to make the exaust from the gas dryer go into a visqueen greenhouse to extend our growing season. Rig it with a timer & leave the wet cloths ready for thier 4am drying. We get enough snow to rule out lettuce & such for a couple of months either way

I like the idea of reusing resources (i.e water, heat, etc.), but wouldn't the water from the washing machine have too much detergent in it for irrigation purposes?

Yes and no... sure there would be soap in the water but the amount and type are controllable inputs by the user.

Amount - The majority of the clothing in an average household is not heavily soiled and requires far less detergent than most people use. The recommended amount on the bottle is based upon a moderate level of visibly dirty clothing. If you can't see obvious signs of soiledness (not a word, but it works ) then you can use about half the recommended amount of detergent.

Type - A large percentage of commonly used detergents are NOT biodegradable however, there are low-impact, biodegradable detergents out there.

So, using the correct amount of the right type of soap will drastically improve the reusability of the discharge.

JavaHead

yes never use the recomended amount of laundry detergent we use a much smaller quantity of liquid detergent in my house

It also depends on the soil the water is discharged on.

the soil in this area tends to be on the acidic side, lots of rotting pine needles & leaves.

raising the ph with some soap is a good thing

down in the valley, the farmers inject sulphuric acid into the soil to lower the PH...

The best solution is going to require some adjustment for local conditions

GA from me as well. And this also brings to light a question I have asked for a long time?

Why do we not ask the questions to those that have the highest probability of knowing the answer?

We have the communications infrastructure to be able to communicate with anyone in the world as if they were sitting in the same room next to us.

So, why aren't the appropriate people in California conversing with their peers in regions, such as Australia, that may have some valuable input?

Probably the same reason why the Netherlands is not asked for input in how to design the optimal dike system around New Orleans. Or why the Ohio Department of Transportation probably hasn't asked Germany how to build a road that lasts longer than one winter season before it needs repair.

I don't know what that reason is. But I do know that, in regards to water conservation, we could all stand to learn from our kind friends down under; they have been living water conservations since the beginning.

JavaHead

Now that some of you are talking "greywater" the answer is even simpler than you think.

You don't even need a three way valve.

Google "greywater diverter" with Australian sources, especially Perth city and you will find diagrams and combinations of existing fittings that are already approved by the authoirities over here.

The simplest (and for me the best) are based on NO volume storage (thus no fermentation/odour/septicity) issues with "when full divert back to sewer" situation.

Basically a screen filter at the trap to stop hair and other particles from going down the re-use line and then burried (permanent installed) "leaky" pipe that allows the water to soak into the surrounding soil.

If the soil is wet, or if there is a huge load of water, then the pipe fills and effectively overflows down the sewer.

For you guys, if the line freezes, then it would fill and automatically divert back to sewer.

Unless you're dedicated, don't even contemplate a system of storage for greywater. It goes septic in around 8 hours, turns highly acidic and will eat through unprotected metal drums in days.

Regarding the results fromt he school kids, there is no site for that. It's been done as a class exercise each your at the school where our three kids studied and I've seen the results year on year.

I'll put another post in after this one on some different material.

That gives me something to chew on when I have some time.

what your describing is much like a very small commercial grease trap with an overflow.

good simple plan.

I completely agree that storing greywater is a bad idea. The costs climb quickly when you try to get tricky & bring grey water back into the house, aeration or chemicals are the only options I know of?

Surface discharge won't fly in most locales

I'm not worried so much about the pipes freezing as having a muddy skating rink

there should be a solution, as there is a definable rainy season.

Me again. Something differnt.

Did you know that in Australia, the government is encouraging every household to buy water tanks to catch rainwater from their roof? They are doing this to reduce our reliance on public authorities for all water used. Each household is elligible for $500 rebate.

They are recommending this water be used for gardens, washing cars, flushing toilets and so on.

Some water supply authorities are providing additional subsidies for households that connect their rainwater systems into toilet flushing, showers and laundry services. (As much as another $1500 per household.)

It seems strange, but the companies that sell water are actually supporting people reducing their metered usage. I am also aware of one that provides customers with rebates to buy water efficient washing machines. (Rewarding them for choosing to use less water.)

Even where water tanks are not feasible, homes (On reticulated water supplies) can receive subsidy to replace "old style" toilets with more modern dual flush systems (with proper pedestals) to reduce household water consumption.

Nationally there is a directive for "cost signals" to be included into the billing, so no flat fee systems, but usage billing with penalties for high users (Higher charges once thresholds exceeded.)

In Aus dollars, the typical bill is $580 for "availability" plus $2 per kl for up to 200kl in the year, then around $2.50 for any extra kl.

I'm far enought out of town to be completely "off system" so it doesn't bother me, but I could still get a subsidy for one additional tank if I felt that necessary.

I noticed that in London, there are some incentives for homes to fit water tanks in an effort to reduce the impact of stormwater with recommended use for toilets and gardening.

What is the situation in the USA? (I think I know the answer, but maybe this is an opportunity for some of you to vent.)

Some of the older homes still have operational cisterns but the majority have filled them with gravel an abandoned their usage.

There are incentives in some draught affected areas if only that you may have and abundance when the area reservoir is near empty.

Another GA!! This information from Australia's practical experience is very valuable to us in dry California. We have a lot in common and can learn much from each other. Many thanks. Ed Weldon

Can and already is. What do you think global warming is all about? Higher sea level and higher temp gives higher water evaporation and water concentrations to the atmosphere that eventually will give higher rain volumes and Voila! Problem solved

PS Hope you don't live near sea level like me. LOL
--64 6E 69 4D 65 6C 70 6D 69 53--

Guest -- You're missing something here. Higher energy levels in the atmosphere produce greater extremes of weather. This isn't just me saying this. This comes from the scientists. In other words fewer bigger storms and floods and extreme drought in more places.

I'm experiencing this where I live (Coastal northern California rural mountains) although that is a sample of one.

On October 14 we experienced the first rainfall of the winter season consisting of a one day total of 12 inches. This was 50 percent greater than any single day in the past 35 years since I started measuring rainfall at my home. Where to you think that water mostly went? Back to the ocean. Very little soaked into the ground to improve groundwater levels. In the 4 weeks since then we have not had any measurable rainfall and none is in sight.

This seems to be happening in a lot of places in the world. Australia comes to mind. So I don't think the problem is solved as you suggested.

Ed Weldon

Eddy think it was obvious i was stressing the irony of the thing cheers.

If we knew who you are maybe,

all guests look alike

Hi Ed,

The latest report is the ocean level has risen 0.75mm this is a very great amount of increase though it's overall impact is minimal. Do you agree?

If this cap and trade junk bill passes it will add on average about $30.00 to the cost of each tankful of gasoline.

Check this out:

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud?
Top climate scientists discuss hiding contrary data, marginalizing dissenters

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116657

Melting Ice Caps Expose Hundreds Of Secret Arctic Lairs

https://www.theonion.com/melting-ice-caps-expose-hundreds-of-secret-arctic-lairs-1819571016

WASHINGTON—In an effort to combat what organizers are calling "our current epidemic of complete and utter obliviousness," the American Foundation for Paying Attention to Things has declared December "National Awareness Month."

https://politics.theonion.com/december-named-national-awareness-month-1819571153

Coca-Cola leads cheering section for 1-world climate change taxes
100 companies push '16 days left to seal deal' on $10 trillion treaty

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116310

C'mon bwire .......... We all should know The Onion is good sarcastic comedy.

Where'd you get that 30 gallons per tankful number. Are we talking Diesel locomotives here?

As to 0.75mm ocean rise....... What do credible scientists have to say about that?

As to marginalizing quack science...... I'm all for that.

Ed Weldon

The 0.75mm ocean rise figure was from a Roger Pink post, I'll find it...

On a serious note;

Climate Change

• 11/19/2009

Stagnating Temperatures

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

By Gerald Traufetter

DPA DPA ddp Start Gallery

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Political projections are of a 0.03¢ per mile carbon tax on automobiles

3/100ths of a penny?

Energy is going up no matter what!

The citizens of India & China want to live a similar lifestyle to what we do & that takes energy.

increasing the efficiency of everyone's use of energy is inevitable

we need to save the oil for uses that have few acceptable substitutes like lubrication.

If cap'n trade were about saving oil cars would be re-chipped to attain the 33-35 average mpg of the early 1990's. We had a Seville that averaged 33mpg and a Geo that averaged 51mpg.

But cap'n trade is about money and little else...

Yes tech can produce the conditions by which water shortages can be lessened or eliminated. That's not to say those systems wouldn't be abused and the end result be less than optimal.

$0.03 or 3¢

No doubt temperatures have increased but human contribution is unlikely.

Here ya go:

Recent warm summers further accelerated the mass loss to 273 Gt per year (1 Gt is the mass of 1 cubic kilometre of water), in the period 2006-2008, which represents 0.75 mm of global sea level rise per year.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112141311.htm?utm_source=feedburner&amp;amp;utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

To a large degree, yes. The World's oceans cover 75-odd percent of its surface, so there's water aplenty to be had. The problem lies in the purification, transport, and distribution costs ... one has to be willing to pay them to get water.

When water is available locally, transport isn't a problem. When it's not available, transport is a BIG cost.

Shipping water in bulk from here in Canada has been the subject of shrill resistance by the odd group here and there, and more so by one organized by Maude Barlowe (I forget the name), who's parlayed herself a job spanning decades by raising funds by mail from feel-good stooges (like yours truly, in the late 80s). Now, after 20-odd years of the sky not falling down, Canadians have tuned out and she's gotten herself a nice job as Water Commissioner or something at the UN. :-S

Anyway, her thing was that bulk water shipment would prove to be an environmental disaster for Canada. Leave aside that it would take a heck of a large number of tanker ships to drain Canada's water, the simple fact is that filling ships and sending them off to Mauretania or wherever is VERY much more expensive than desalinating ocean water; and it STILL doesn't cure the problem of getting water to the inside of the country if there are no conveniently navigable rivers. In that particular case, a further problem is containerizing the water and hauling it over by truck or train, or even by airplane if one must.

Other techniques also can be used: for example, Canada is effect ships water (from its semi-arid Prairie region, of all places) through its agricultural produce. Canada's wheat and other grains (Canada produces around 6% of the world supply, but accounts for 20-25% of the wheat trade because of its low population) enable dry countries to grow other, more suitable, low-water produce. In this sense, Canada exports its water through its wheat and such.

The latter is a big deal: dry countries, and those with a low-productivity agricultural sector (Algeria, for example), import huge quantities of wheat to feed their people. And nonsensical countries like Saudi Arabia eventually learn that food security does NOT mean growing all of your own food no matter what the cost. (In the case of Saudi Arabia, they HAVE grown wheat there ... I don't know if they still do it, though). Sure, it's pretty cool to brag at one's neighbours that you can do that kind of stuff, but there comes the time when one simply can't afford that kind of success.

Happy New Year, all! And kudos at your patience for reading this all, hahahaha.

DZ