Of homes and water

the water is now running down the streets into rain sewers,the into the mississippi.

Aren't there dams on the miss'ipii?
Doesn't agriculture use water for irrigation?

I think the real point is water conservation needs taking seriously with regulations on newbuilds etc...
(I'm in UK so I may be waaay off here...don't shoot the cat)
Del

If we don't have to deal with the environmentalist and other do-good extremists plus receive a portion of the bail-out money the solution to the water issue in the mid-west and southwest is fairly straight forward.

Every city in the effected region should build storage tanks that are capable of storing at least 1 months worth of storm water collection based on the wettest month in the last 50 years. This water should then be filtered and used by the city and the excess if any should then be injected into the aquifer.

Additional reservoirs will need to be built to collect snow melt and rain waters from the mountains. The water can then be filltered to meet the same quality as that in the aquifer (or better), at this point the water can be injected to make up for the water being drawn off by farmers and other users.

Of course provisions will have to be made to dump excess water water in the event the aquifers are full but I think we are talking a couple of decades before that would happen.

The reserviors that need to be built would also provide renewable, sustanible and very very low carbon footprint green energy.

I saw a show on the Discovery Channel that showed a similar system of great antiquity near the Nazca Plateau in South America.

The peoples of that area eventually disapeared and their engineering feat was covered by the desert until recent times.

So are you saying that the midwest and southwest are doomed to be covered in desert sands if engineers try to bring more water to the region but will be fine if we stay with the status quo of todays water usage?

Not at all,

I was just noting that what you proposed had been done milenia ago and aparently worked well for a time.

Who knows why their civilization failed? I'm sure there were other factors involved. Don't get your nose out of joint.

From what I remember of that show the hydrologist involved thought the system would still work today if all the channels were cleaned out.

No my nose is not out of joint, I just could not tell if you were taking a negative pop-shot at a suggestion or not like so many do in these forums.

There have been a number of acient civilizations evidencing extensive water works- the Anazazi (sp?) of the Southwest US, Angor Wat, Petra in Jordan, amoung many others. There is a current theory that at least some of these civilizations may have collapsed as a result of too excessive a modification of the natural hydrology...

Every city in the effected region should build storage tanks that are capable of storing at least 1 months worth of storm water

Cheaper to bring back ice from mars.

Most modern municipal water systems do not have the storage capacity of a full day, let alone a full month. Imagine what the cost of a gallon of this free storm water would be if they had to build the storage tanks. So one quick eestimate would be that this would raise costs by a factor of over thirty...

Did you try a sample calculation?

At 300 liters per person per day personal use (no industrial or energy related use just personal use) Oh hell, call it 75 gallons per day per person, My town of 25000 and 30 day month we'd need to hold 56,250,000 gallons, OVER AND ABOVE the 1,875,000 that will be actually used each day. That overage is about 7519500 cubic feet, or a tank a little under 200 ft^3.

That 56250000 will add about 20% to the cost of the water in lost opportunity cost not counting cost to construct and interest on the storage tanks that you suggested...

I'll pass.

milo

Thanks CWarner. That helps put it into perspective. Not sure why you marked it off topic.

So now each town would have to set up the infrastructure to handle the water of about 1 /30th of what the panama canal handles daily, for amonth. Or 1/90th of the canals capacity.

Not sure my local tax base could afford it.

Would be a hell of a stimulus for the local economy though.

Thanks for the benchmark.

milo

First note that I talked about storing "Storm Water" which will vary across the mid and southwest regions but perhaps I should have said container which then covers a number of options which maybe more cost effective.

If you are looking for "Cheap" solutions to an issue that effects a rather large portion of the US then I think you will be looking for a long time. Here is a link to a wiki entry with a little info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer Also check out the USGS http://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/hpgw/SIGFINDS.html.

If the depletion of the aquafier occurs in the next 25-40 years as some of the studies suggest then I suspect the costs will be much higher.

I do however enjoy how quick you are to put down ideas with no alternate solutions and as my boss is fond of saying "If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem". Just say'in

Wasn't clear about what was being stored.

This is an engineering forum, and my comments were not a "quick put down," they were an attempt to quantify the scope of an indeterminate proposal.

If an attempt to quantify the costs of a proposal is seen as negative, then May I respectfully suggest that you avoid engineering at all costs- ITS WHAT WE DO as engineers, material scientists, and managers.

We Critically Think about ideas, their costs and consequences (that means use numbers to explore and understand the words being said) and try to find an optimal solution. Where optimal means "according to resources likely to be available."

Unemployed people aren't out looking at MAIBACHS, and most towns and villages in the US do not have the spare cash to fund the scheme of the scope that was described. I just tried topoint that out.

Increasing costs of water by a factor of thirty,( what I thought you said) or by a factor of 5 to 10 times - (quick estimate of public works cost to build every town a reservoir, including cost of eminent domain taking of needed land and right s of way) doesn't pass the "optimal" test.

BUt if any attempt at quantifying your contributions is going to be seen as negative, thank you for so explaining. We'll no longer comment on your "brainstorms."

Best wishes.

milo

Milo I understand that almost everything has some type of associated cost and in any design cost of potential solutions has to be considered before actual implementation but if you limit your thinking by jumping on the "it will cost too much" band wagon before a "Concept" has been explored then you run the risk of missing a great deal potential ideas.

Last year I designed a system to produce ultra-pure CMP slurries for the semiconductor industry in 5,000 gallon batches at four batches per day. The initial design was the best of everything system, redundant pumps, teflon lined tanks, PVDF piping, 300 plus I/O points...ect. The cost of the system would have exceeded 2 million dollars to build. In the end after going through the critical thinking and balancing performance, capacity, quality, reliability needs against cost and projected income with the final result being a $500k system that meets the needs now and for maybe the next two years but is capable of being expanded to meet growing needs without having to reinvent the wheel.

You are right that critical thinking is needed but it is useless if it only produces reasons why something "Can't" be done.

Back to the orginal subject.

Lets look at Wichita, KS with a population of 344,280 covering 139sq miles and an average peak rainfall per month of 4.25 inches in the month of June.

http://www.muninetguide.com/states/kansas/municipality/Wichita.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita,_KS

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/67201?from=month_bottomnav_undeclared

Wichita would need to construct a container that could hold about 10,259,107,000 gallons in order to collect the storm water run off for an average June rainfall. The container would measure about 4500ft x 1100ft x 280ft, about the volume of a small/medium sized lake.

With out jumping into costing yet what are some of the options.

1. use a tunnel boring machine and build a few miles of tunnels.

2. build above ground steel tanks.

3. build in ground steel tanks.

4. build in ground concrete tanks.

5. use existing gravel pits.

6. build multiple collection points around the city.

7. ....... I'm sure with the smart people in this forum a lot more options can be thought of.

To save money maybe a storage container large enough to hold one weeks worth of storm water is built. 2250ft x 1100ft x 140ft which is about the size of a gravel pit often found near Interstates and other major construction projects. Through out the Mid and southwest there are open strip mines that have to be restored to some reusable point depending on federal, state and local laws, perhaps some of these could be used for water storage at a considerably lower cost to the tax payers.

Moving on to another option to bring water into the mid and southwest and reduce the need for long open canals or large diameter piped and multiple pumping stations is to redirect some of the water for the wetter northern most Midwest states and pump it into the Ogallala Aquifer and allow the aquifer to act as the distribution system. Granted it would take time for water injected at one end to reach the other but if you take a more regional view of the aquifer it may just turn out to be a viable distribution system.

But then again what I'm describing is small time and cheap compared to a lot of the projects already underway, not too mention some are already being done for years now. Check out http://www.wichita.gov/ and http://ks.water.usgs.gov/studies/qw/cheney/ for more information about water in the Wichita, KS area, I'm sure if I take another five minutes and Google I could find another 20 links or so to other cities doing similar things.

Some years ago there was talk of bringing icebergs to drought areas.

Good morning, Milo. I think you meant a tank 200 ft on a side.

Indeed. T'was late. Thanks for the quality control. Thats what I like about CR4's free market of ideas.

milo

WOW! You have described a solution to this enormous problem... a solution, so simple, and yet not only does it solve the problem, but we actually have to worry about having TOO MUCH clean water and forgetfully overfilling the reservoir. On top of that you have provided a renewable low carbon footprint source of energy!

Don't stop! Please, for the good of all mankind, bless us further with your uncanny wisdom!

....World Hunger? Please tell us that we should build more of your energy producing reservoirs and plant more crops, and that if people eat more they will be less hungry!

... Poverty? Tell us how your energy producing reservoirs make cheap energy readily available, universally increasing wealth.

...War, Genocide? Tell us how your energy producing reservoirs eliminate scarcity and bring about mans compassionate nature....

...

...but first....

help of with some of the details of your marvelous plan....

1. How high above sea level are you building your reservoirs and how much will this cost? I am mainly asking, because you need to have sufficient head to drive a turbine to produce the renewable energy you claim.

2. Will your reservoirs be made of glass? How much will this cost? I ask this because, if we are not going to manage the demand side of the water equation and we are going to try to obtain reserves from the sky, a huge area will need to be assigned to this task. Unless you ahve devised some equally miraculous transport and storage idea, then logisitcs will dictate that the area needed to capture this rainfall will compete with either farming land or urban dwellings.

3. I am excited to hear about your new super high efficiency water tubine, which allows more than enough energy to refine the reservoir water AND to pump the clean water underground, leaving it a net energy producer.

4. I was enthralled by your clever idea to use the reservoirs to pump water underground...instead of using it for current residential and commercial and agriculteral needs. By pumping water into the reservoir and then back out, it won't be so readily obvious thatperople are using more than can be reasonably expected to gatheredd from rainfall.

We should take you solutions as a devine example... we should follow your lead in completely ignoring the demand side of this current emballance...

Oh glorious clear-seeing modern prophet... bestow further wisdoms unpon us!!!

I shouldn't even reply to a post made by a "guest" since they rarely offer anything constructive. I will however ask you to point out other options since you seem to be such an expert on the subject.

Large reservoirs will destroy carbon sinks (natural or man-cultivated vegitation that absorbs CO2), and increase the amount of methane emitted into the atmosphere due to a concentration of decaying vegetable matter settling into the basin. Reservoirs also take up a whole lot of area, land that can no longer be used for much of anything else. Unless you build your city floating on the reservoir...

Don't get me wrong, I am 200% for storing any water you can lay your hands on and for limiting the outflow to the ocean to the minimum.

The ecology of any river system however needs a minimum flow to maintain itself.

Another sad point is that evaporation would exceed rainfall.

The other concern should be the volumes involved. a square km may produce 400,000 m³ (at 500mm rain 80% efficient runoff )

In SA it is law that any property owner may catch, store and use the runoff from his roof. A house of 250 m² could provide at least 100 m³ of water per year, A small tank of 10m x 10m x 10m would do just fine. At least the water requirements could be reduced by at least 15%.

Y'all folks seem to forget the amount of things we store in natural salt domes, frequently the ones we are emptying the natural gas out of.

Or as demonstrated in the 1950s, Underground cisterns of any size can be created through the appropriate use of explosives - and wthe walls glassed too!

So, you are suggesting that we fill salt domes with excess stormWATER runoff?

or that we apply underground nuclear explosionsunder the 14,495 towns cities and municipalities in the USA to create these glass lined reservoirs?

I think I'll be reading the label carefully of bottled water in your world.

milo

Of ancient civilizations, I thought in general they typically failed due to overpopulation outstripping whatever feats of science or engineering they had achieved. I'm really thinking here about North and South American civilizations, and descriptions of their collapse as described by Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse. Apparently the culprit is asphalt and concrete though when land use is shifted from either fallow or farms to urban environments. I have heard it suggested that roads and parking lots be made permeable, instead of impermeable by simply drilling holes in them. This suggestion was made so as to not kill all the worms. Of course there is a problem with it, since it is likely too many holes and you might as well not have any pavement at all. Possibly a surface is available, or could be invented that would satisfy our desire for car and truck surfaces, but would allow water to go on through? I have also heard of road surfaces made of ground up old tires, as superior in life to common asphalt. This stuff would possibly allow for holes by hanging together and not cracking, and combined with a scrim subsurface may be a help in addressing the problem.

Trancendian-

It is a matter of semantics, whether one blames the colapse of acient civilizations on over-engineering or over-population, since over-engineering induces over-population (hey, this canal/storage basin makes it possible for us to grow more food and feed more people, which means now we need more canals/water, which means we can support a larger population, which means...). Any species, left unmolested by natural enemies (predators, parasites, disease), will ultimately expand to the limit that the resources available in the environment will be severely stressed (think rabbits in Australia, Russian Sage in the American West, zebra clams, snake breeds in the Pacific Islands, rats, the list goes on...), at least until the population collapses and the process starts again (hopefully). Humans are no different...

"Of course there is a problem with it, since it is likely too many holes and you might as well not have any pavement at all."

I understand that in Germany they customarily make parking lots with a "checkerboard" of rectangular blocks with grass in between. The blocks of grass are narrow enough that tires do not fall in the hole. Rain does not run off, and the grass has a cooling effect. I've only seen pictures, and I don't know the economics, compared with solid asphalt.

I think a lot of the "water problem" is mismangement, politics. In California and the Southwest, there is a lot of subsidized irrigated agriculture with low-cost water, and, in urban areas, a lot of irrigated lawns. Here in Kansas City, MO, The City of Fountains, there is concern that the Missouri River is too low, but they don't turn off the fountains.

Why is all that fresh water melting up in Greenland being wasted?

Where is the pipeline of fresh glacial melt of what must be the purest water on earth?

Since a litre of water sells for more than petrol, where are the entrepreneurs with the sanitary lined tankers hauling this nice pure new water?

Maybe I just think different. CJM

CJ-

I have been trying to convince the powers that be in Panama that more money could be made shutting down the canal, buy a couple tankers, and sell the water. Unfortunately, the powers that be get more satisfaction from watching ships transit...

Why not build a pipe line from the panama canal to each US city then you can just pump the water out of the locks to whoever bids highest for it! New great revenue earner for panama.

regards

Chas

p.s. I want my 0.1% commision for the idea!

Even then, they'd still find a way to use it all and want more!!

Until we become responsible for our own water requirements there will never be enough.

They'd "suck it dry" then look for something else to pillage.

hope they don't read this. Some of them might start to take it personal.

Thou art clearly an engineer. That 0.1% commission show that you lack the aspiration and greed of a commercial type!

milo

In the USA we had a proposal in the late 1950's that dragged on into the 70's & 80's that would have been the answer to water needs in Canada, USA & Mexico as well as providing more electric power than we could consume. It also would have irrigated countless acres. It was called the North American Water and Power Alliance aka NAWAPA. We really dropped the ball on that one. Maybe we should look at it again.

Edmund

Edmund (Guest)

That subject came up again recently and was met by a lot of loud screams from some Canadians. I don't remember the details.

Ed Weldon

I'm simply pointing out (getting way back to the response to my statement) that making storage underground will not change the ecosystem and is relatively simple.

You want to store water, rocks, what have you. No one said it shouldn't be radioactive.

If you don't want to use nukes to create underground storage, most of the midwest and gulf area is permeated with salt domes tight enough to hold hydrogen, natural gas, and other very slippery things. Water is a snap.

But on a more serious note, one of the best places to store water is in the aquifer you are probably using right now

In Arizona we are still using the Anasazi irrigation system as part of the CAP canal system, and we store unused Colorado river water in a project called Granite Reef.

"...salt domes tight enough to hold hydrogen, natural gas, and other very slippery things. Water is a snap."

I haven't done the math, but I don't want salt water. Is there some way to make the salt insoluble?

You can use reverse osmosis to remove the salt.

Great Answer,

What else can I say.

Excellent with the exception most locales have a minimum flat rate for water/sewer etc..

Rainwater storage tanks also provide an opportunity for stormwater mitigation in cities where the soakage ability of the soils have been paved.

If each property had a 20,000L tank with a 10mm diverter at the 10,000L level, then when a storm happens, the tank will fill. Once it reaches the 10,000L level, it will start to "leak" through the diverter, but only at a restricted rate. In a prolonged downpour, the tank will eventually fill and overflow in the conventional way, but for each tank fitted out in that manner there will be 10,000L less runoff in the surge time and the excess will be able to slowly leak away after the strom has passed.

That represents 10 cubic meters of water "held over". The cumulative effect of such a system in a city environment would be significant.

By the way, in Aus, we have "rotomoulded" tanks of various configurations. These can be installed underneath driveway slabs, or standing underneath house eaves, or burried underneath lawns. I've even seen one place where a series of tanks were used to form "rooms" in a large landscaped garden.

The rainwater storage tank idea is really neat. Here's some more thoughts on the subject.

My wife and I honeymooned in Bermuda 45 years ago. I remember all the roofs of buildings were coated in some white lime stuff and used for collecting water. Seems the entire geology of the Bermuda islands is porous coral so the only water table is seawater at tidal levels. I suspect this is typical of most civilized developments on coral based islands throughout the world.

There's been some obscure research reported lately in the media about the development of bacteria in clothes washed in washing machines using cold and lukewarm water. I'd proceed with some caution if using non-potable water for clothes washing and trying at the same time to save energy used to heat water.

Somewhat related is my own observation of the amount of bird droppings that accumulate on the house roof especially on the end near the bird feeders. I, like my wife, enjoy having birds around. So I support the bird feeding thing. But I also deal with some of the problems they bring, such as the added bird droppings. We don't currently collect rainwater from the roof; but many years ago before we drilled our current well I did experiment with a small water catchment system.

Ed Weldon

Just AE --

GA. I didn't want to seem alarmist. I'm glad you added some good positive elaboration on the subjects I raised. There's a whole lot to be said for the idea of rainwater capture.

I'm kind of interested in just how those roofs in Bermuda were built, exactly what is the white stuff they were coated with and whether any effect the coating had on the water chemistry was worth the trouble. Anyone got the "skinny" on that?

Ed Weldon

Try adding detergent to the cold or lukewarm wash water

apropos

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

Check out LaundryPure

Back in the day... Many houses had wells for their water supply. Those that did not either because they were in dry areas or built, as we say in East Tennessee, up on top of the ridge, had cisterns which were rain catchments. Usually the roof was used as a collector. Those that were concerned with bird droppings would let it rain a while before diverting the water into the cistern.

Here in Panama, I have seen aquafers destroyed by having too many private wells drawing water from them. Since most of the aquafers are shallow here, I have also seen them damaged by upstream installation of hydroelectric facilities, as determined by the recharge rate before and after the construction of the hydroelectric facilities.

I agree with the storage of water bur I think every homeowner should put in 100 to 2000 gallon, above or below groung tanks to catch rainfall for irrigation and car washing etc.. If you add this to each homeowner as well as each city, you will see a new level of responsibility. But in this effort remember that the city infrastructure cost for water treatment and its capacity will mean the while you are personally more effective with the resource the water you use from the city may cost more.

Historically, municipalities charge considerably less than the cost of acquisition and distribution of water, because the public has the perception that water is "free".

Regarding your 100 to 2000 gallon storage, this is most likely woefully inadequate to be of much use. The EPA says that the average household uses 75 gallons of water per day per resident- based on actual consumption measurements here in Panama (where lifestyles are similar), I find that the typical home (up-scale, of course) that I have monitored uses more like 150 gallons of water per day per resident. Since we typically have a 5 month dry spell in the areas of Panama where my work is concentrated, the MINIMUM storage I recommend is 20,000 gallons for a typical household (in some of the areas in which I work, municipal supplies tend to go dry as soon as it starts raining, due to poor system design and lack of maintenance).

Thanks Esbuck, I needed that. In the US does seem they have a real hard time working different disciplines together. Of course not the only place. Seems sometimes though all the money goes to one contractor, who actually does only one thing, like pave. He makes more money at low bid by just paving the whole place. Don't slow down, just do it! Really nice of you to notice the essence of my thought and report a place that has figured a way to do it. As an aside, it has long been desired that Urban Buildings be Multi Use, ie: homes offices and factory spaces in the same tall building. Was, and was not, and now in flux. Possibly another thread subject. Thought link has to do with multi use of a parking lot related to water. Ky said I write in a telegraph style. I accept that.

I haven't been to Montreal, Canada, in a long time, but I am told they have a law that all downtown buildings have to have retail space on the street level. Banks, insurance companies, aaprtment buildings, etc., are all "multi-use" with retail next to the sidewalk. It makes for an attractive, human scale, pedestrian friendly city.

I blame the city planners and zoning boards for much of our urban problems. There is much to be said for living over the store.

I have a patent, (unenforcible) for a method of transmitting and storing energy, as from wind turbines, and one of the free byproducts is potable water. Install a wind turbine near a source of water, an ocean or a river or..., and you can have mechanical energy, heat, air conditioning, electricity, and distilled water, at no cost for fuel.