Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

kbd512 · 2022-05-08 12:48:42

Wal-Mart water is $0.415 per pound ($830 / 2,000 lbs per ton).

US Department of the Interior defines 1 acre-foot of water as 326,000 gallons and 2,718,000lbs. An acre-foot is a unit of volume having an area of 1 acre and a depth of 1 foot.

1 acre-foot at $3,000 per acre-foot then works out to:

$3,000 / 2,718,000lbs = $0.001103752759382 per pound

USGS says the average American consumes 82 gallons of water per day, or 29,930 gallons of water per year. That figure was from 2015, and I have no idea if it went up or down as of 2022. US daily water consumption from 2015 was also 322 billion gallons per day (all uses, not just human consumption). That works out to 987,730 acre-feet per day (322,000,000,000 gallons / 326,000 gallons per acre-foot).

$3,000 per acre-foot then works out to an annual cost of $33.04 for the average American's potable water consumption, so if this scheme actually produces potable water at that cost figure, then that's exceptionally affordable. I'm guessing a profit margin can be thrown in on top of that to bring the cost to $53.04 per American per year (less than $5 per person per month), and then you have an endlessly profitable business, to the tune of $8 billion dollars per year (and your business is still inordinately cheaper than store-bought water). Wal-Mart water works out to $12,420.95 per year, or about 376 times more expensive.

Total daily cost to the nation, of 400 million people, works out to $2,963,190,000 or $7.407975 per person per day, or $2,703.91 per person per year, or $4,055.87 with a 50% profit margin. However, nearly all legitimate business have 5% to 10% profit margins. With a legit business profit margin of 10%, that works out to $270.391 per person per year, or $108,156,400,000 across all users and uses. The government gets about 40% of that, so the other $60B is profit, but after all employee salaries are accounted for, there is probably $24B left that is actually profit.

If the government runs the water, as it does now, then what would otherwise be tax money or profit should go towards improving and maintaining the system. Government runs all or most public water utilities, and since it has experience doing so, this is a necessary function of government that the private sector has no real experience with, and no, selling frou-frou bottled water at Wally World doesn't count as experience running a public utility. Government uses bottled water after natural disasters, purchased or donated from the private sector, but that's it.

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-08 13:45:49

For kbd512 re #176 and further development of the cost analysis!

The post below is about the new MIT desalination process, which is not yet ready for production, but does appear to be promising for small delivery situation, such as the military, who are (apparently) helping with funding...

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tur … 07127.html

Here's another view of the new MIT electric separation process...

Turning seawater into drinking water with less power than a cell phone charger
Cassidy Ward
Sat, May 7, 2022, 12:30 PM
Our planet is absolutely swimming in water. More than 70% of Earth’s surface is covered in the stuff, making up a vast series of interconnected oceans. That water supports all of the life on Earth, but most of it isn’t drinkable. According to the United States Geological Survey, only 2.5% of the world’s water is freshwater, and much of it is locked up in glaciers, in the atmosphere, or so deep underground as to be out of reach. What remains is responsible for keeping global populations hydrated and alive.
In the 1995 film Waterworld, things get a whole lot worse when the ice caps melt. In the movie, melting ice covers the world in an unbroken sea, mixing up much of the previously available freshwater with seawater. Despite being surrounded by water, the Mariner — played by Kevin Costner — is reduced to filtering his own urine just to stay alive.
Things in the real world aren’t as bad as all that, but they aren’t as good as they could be. According to the World Health Organization, roughly one third of the global human population lacks reliable access to clean, safe drinking water.
Rounding up enough water for communities around the world involves building dams and reservoirs and pumping water across state or national boundaries. Factory-sized desalination plants have been built in coastal areas, pulling water from the oceans and removing the salt so that it can be safely consumed. Those systems, however, only serve communities with existing infrastructure, leaving developing communities out to dry.

Hoping to address this ongoing crisis, Junghyo Yoon, a scientist and engineer from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT, and colleagues, partnered with Eric Brack, a research chemist at the U.S. Army (DEVCOM) Soldier Center to develop a portable desalination device. Roughly the size of a suitcase, their device uses electricity to transform seawater or other non-potable water sources into fresh drinking water. The device was announced in a paper published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
“Our technology uses an electromembrane process called ion concentration polarization. When seawater travels through its water channels, it experiences an electric field which removes solids,” Yoon told SYFY WIRE.
Electromembrane processes aren’t new, but this new technology represents innovations making the whole process safer while also making it suitable for portable, individual use. Electrodialysis, another electromembrane process, uses alternative stacks of ionic and unionic change membranes to pull dissolved solids out of water. That successfully pulls salt out of water but doesn’t necessarily make it safe to drink. It could still contain pathogens or other contaminants which this new technology can address.
“What we’re really trying to do at DEVCOM soldier center is look at novel technologies to advance water purification. We need that for military use but it’s not just a military problem. Water security is huge, if we can create and foster future technologies to create better water security across the globe, that can help avoid wars over water,” Brack said.
Cassidy Water Desalination Prototype
Water desalination prototype. Photo: Dr. Junghyo Yoon
This new device pushes water through water channels from left to right while an electric field is applied up and down. It successfully pulls out dissolved solids like salt, but also grabs hold of suspended solids like bacteria, viruses, and potentially heavy metals or chemical contaminants.
As water flows through the intake and moves through the electric field, it’s broken up into two separate streams. The first collects all of the solids and spits them back out into the ocean. The second collects purified drinking water. Given the amount of water in the oceans and the comparatively small amount of fresh drinking water being pulled out, there’s little risk of salinity or contaminants being significantly elevated. At present, the amount of fresh water being collected is relatively small, but scientists hope to improve the flow rate in the near future.
“In the lab, we achieved one liter per hour production rate. In field testing, we implemented a rate of 0.3 liters per hour. Roughly one can of drinking water every hour. Right now, we’re pushing to scale up to five liters per hour,” Yoon said.
Looking forward, the team is hoping their system could be improved even further, by at least an order of magnitude as compared to the current one liter per hour rate.
“Right now the goal is a liter an hour. We don’t have a lot of pre-filtration because we’re trying to optimize the technology itself, but with pre-filtration we could get that time down. I would like this to be able to support 10 to 12 people, so 10 liters per hour is what I’d like to get it to,” Brack said.
The full system uses roughly as much power as a cell phone charger, about 20 watts of power per hour, and can be powered by a 50-watt solar panel if access to electrical infrastructure isn’t available. According to Yoon, the team could have a finished prototype up and running over the next year or so. From there, their devices could be made commercially available or made available to communities in need through partnerships with global nonprofit organizations.
“Moving water around is a huge, costly, logistical burden. If we can create water at the source point, we can reduce the amount of bottled water we’re relying on,” Brack said.
Water security is a critical need, whether you’re living in the Waterworld or the real world, and technologies like these could make that a reality for billions of people who really need it.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-08 17:29:25

Following the analysis by kbd512 in Post #176, combined with the original report of the $3000 per acre foot target price for potable water, I see these numbers as useful targets for any competitive potable water delivery service.

Per Google:

About 13,500,000 results (0.50 seconds)
Conversion number between acre-foot [ac ft] and ton (water) is 1211.2860383746.
acre-foot-ton (water) conversion
http://conversion.org › volume › acre-foot › ton-water

3000/1211 >> $2.48 per metric ton of potable water.

I agree with (what I understand of kbd512's post ) that that is a ** very ** attractive price for potable water.

What I'm ** not ** clear on is whether the water on offer is indeed potable. It might be, but that is a detail I'd like to see clarified.

If anyone can find the original proposal, please post a link!

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-05-08 19:37:31

The manned planes could be converted if the sensors and electronics could support them being altered from the current condition of use.

AS far as powering it from solar planes require more surface area to obtain lift as the panels are not part of any useful structural or other lift capability its a heavy power source.

While a fire fighting plane would w2ant fresh water a desalination lake does not so pure ocean water would fit that bill. So is it cost effective would be the question as compared to a pipeline or trucking since these are costly setups as well.

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-08 20:10:23

For SpaceNut re #179

Thanks for continuing to think about the challenges of supplying fresh water to a thirsty population, on Earth and on Mars!

This evening's Zoom included kbd512 showing a variety of Concentrated Solar Power facilities, including a large one in Arizona.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-09 17:13:07

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-exaggerat … 19425.html

AZCentral | The Arizona Republic
No exaggeration: Record lows at Lake Powell and Lake Mead call for drastic action
Tom Buschatzke and Ted Cooke
Sun, May 8, 2022, 9:00 AM
For weeks, we’ve been seeing media reports regarding conditions in the Colorado River Basin – specifically with regard to our country’s largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, which have dropped to record low elevations.
The media have been reporting it accurately. The Colorado River Basin has been in a prolonged drought, exacerbated by climate change.
We are experiencing the driest conditions in the Colorado River Basin in more than 1,200 years – and these conditions are expected to continue well into the future.
Both Lake Powell and Lake Mead are approaching critical elevations and will require unprecedented management actions to protect infrastructure in both the Upper (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and Lower (Arizona, California, Nevada and parts of Mexico) Colorado River Basins.

Protecting infrastructure protects water supplies.
Lake Powell required immediate action
The difference in water levels at Wahweap Marina on Lake Powell from June 24, 2021 (top image) to March 28, 2022.
Lake Powell and Lake Mead operate “conjunctively.” That means that the operations of one affect the other. The system is designed to work so that runoff originating in the Upper Basin fills Lake Powell, and Lake Mead is filled by releases from Lake Powell and intervening flows below Glen Canyon Dam.
“Operational uncertainty” has become a watchword for Lake Powell. Lake Powell is at 24% of capacity (elevation 3,522 feet), the lowest since it was first filled.
At this juncture, Lake Powell’s elevation requires immediate protective actions. This year, Glen Canyon Dam will be releasing about 500,000 acre-feet less than was anticipated to Lake Mead.
Lake Mead and the Lower Basin still have the ability to recover this water, but it will be left in Lake Powell to protect that reservoir. Lake Mead is also at record low levels, but the infrastructure is not currently at risk.
With the decreased release, the elevation of Lake Mead will drop this year by about 8 feet. But when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation makes the 2023 Shortage Tier determination for Lake Mead, it will account for the water held back in Lake Powell as if it had been delivered to Lake Mead.
The shortage declaration will occur as usual in August, and current projections point to a Tier 2 Shortage in 2023.
For Arizona, that would mean a 592,000 acre-foot shortage, as compared to the 512,000 acre-foot shortage in 2022. That means less water for CAP water users.
For Lower Basin water users this will mean that collectively, up to 821,000 acre-feet of water will be left in Lake Mead (721,000 acre-feet among Arizona, Nevada and Mexico and contributions of up to 100,000 acre-feet from Reclamation), plus the additional volumes as part of the “500-plus plan.” Implemented late last year, the 500-plus plan is an effort to protect Lake Mead from critically low elevations that is separate from the immediate action now being taken to reserve more water in Lake Powell.
Everyone will be asked to conserve
We are proud of the work we have been doing in Arizona and the contributions to protect the system that have come together in our state.
When you account for the mandatory reductions already taken as part of the first-ever Tier 1 shortage and the voluntary compensated conservation that’s part of the 500-plus plan, Arizonans’ Colorado River water use in 2022 has been reduced by more than 700,000 acre feet – one-fourth of our state’s Colorado River apportionment and more than 40% of CAP’s supply.
This is the equivalent of a Tier 3 shortage.
Arizona water users and interested parties are already working on the plan for 2023, and this will take more broad-based collaboration and collective action to meet the water volumes that will be required.
While this situation is serious and parties are coming together in our state, it’s important to note that supplies to homes and businesses do not face a threat in 2023, but the outlook for Arizona’s Colorado Supply certainly warrants additional actions.
Everyone will be asked to conserve.
Conservation may delay or reduce further mandatory reductions.
We will be reinforcing, renewing and strengthening the strong conservation ethic that has served Arizona well for decades as we continue to work together to find innovative and effective solutions to conserve water.
Tom Buschatzke is director of Arizona Department of Water Resources and Ted Cooke is general manager of Central Arizona Project.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Lake Mead and Lake Powell need drastic action to be saved

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-09 17:40:22

The article at the link below is about the Salton Sea.

Void expressed some interest in the Salton Sea recently.

It appears that Salton Sea advocates are asking for Sea Water to be added to the inland (accidental) lake to try to maintain it's level.

The Salton Sea is well below sea level, for those who might not be familiar with the lake.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/salton-sea-i … 02160.html

The Desert Sun
If Salton Sea isn't restored with ocean water, cleanup could worsen climate change
Chuck Parker and Feliz Nunez
Sun, May 8, 2022, 8:02 AM
If we’re not careful, the well-intentioned effort to restore the Salton Sea could have serious adverse consequences: large emissions of greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change.
A recent report by Jenny Ross, an attorney and writer working on a long-term research project about the Salton Sea, warns that many of the proposed long-range restoration plans will cause large emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.
Studies of other drying lakes around the world have found these atmosphere-warming gasses come from large deposits of carbon-rich organic matter that were trapped and secured under deep water, and are later released from the exposed dry lakebed. Emissions increase with shallow water habitats and from exposed lake beds that are further disturbed by “furrowing” used as a dust control measure.
The potential greenhouse gas emissions from the large areas of the Salton Sea's dry exposed lakebed are immense: over 26 million metric tons of CO2 every year. This means one and a half times the emissions put out by all of California's 14 petroleum refineries, or 7.2% of all of the state's CO2 emissions.
And that estimate does not include methane emissions from highly saline brine sinks such as within the Perimeter Lake, another non-water-import plan. Methane causes up to 80 times more warming than carbon dioxide.
To minimize carbon emissions, the state agencies overseeing the Salton Sea Management Program need to incorporate this scientific knowledge into its 10-year plan.
Chuck Parker, left, and Feliz Nunez
Our public health demands review by a panel of qualified scientists, so that long-range plans be carton neutral or even carbon negative. If California instead implements plans at the Salton Sea that cause major increases in greenhouse gasses, the drought will get worse, putting public health in greater danger from hotter temperatures and blowing dust.
The Salton Sea Coalition is asking Coachella Valley city councils to continue their support of ocean water import to refill the Salton Sea. This is the long-range plan most likely to restore the ecosystem, protect public health, support recreation and tourism, contribute to a vigorous regional economy and avoid ongoing releases of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
All health-conscious residents, please call or write your representatives and urge them to support these resolutions:
The UC Santa Cruz Ocean Water Importation Independent Review Panel must consider potential carbon emissions when conducting the "comprehensive analysis of ocean water import" that was requested by our city in 2019 and 2020 resolutions. This analysis must include emissions from a drying lakebed and proposed shallow water bodies as well as construction related emissions.
The Long-Range Planning Committee of the Salton Sea Management Program must assess potential carbon emissions of all other long-range solutions under consideration to address the man-made problems of the Salton Sea.
Our continued support of ocean water import to refill the Salton Sea. This is the long-range plan most likely to restore the ecosystem, protect public health, support recreation and tourism, contribute to a vigorous regional economy, and avoid ongoing releases of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Chuck Parker (pchuck48@gmail.com) and Feliz Nunez (fmnunez@dc.rr.com) are members of the Salton Sea Coalition.
This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Salton Sea restoration must not worsen climate change | Column

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-09 18:03:31

The article at the link below is about the single individual who has become the gatekeeper for all legislation that might pertain to water in Arizona.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/ar … 20856.html

AZCentral | The Arizona Republic
Arizona is leaving its water future to the whims of a single lawmaker
Joanna Allhands, Arizona Republic
Mon, May 9, 2022, 11:00 AM
Rep. Tim Dunn talks with Rep. Gail Griffin during a 2019 hearing in the House natural resources, energy and water committee that Griffin chairs.
There’s a lot of gnashing of teeth about the close partisan split in the Arizona Legislature.
Some grumble that it turns one or two Republicans into the emperor, forcing legislation to live or die by their thumbs up or down.
Yet while many indications suggest that next year’s Legislature will become redder, water policy is still likely to live and die by one lawmaker – Republican Rep. Gail Griffin, who chairs the House’s natural resources committee and who is notorious for killing any water bill with which she disagrees.
In fact, observers believe that Griffin’s grasp on water policy could grow even stronger because of the massive amount of turnover in the House. A lot of new faces will be there, no matter whom voters elect. And water policy is complex. It can take years for lawmakers to really understand how it all works.
No one questions, goes around Griffin
Yet despite polling that suggests voters see water as a priority, only a handful of candidates seem poised or interested enough to make water a cornerstone issue.
Presuming that doesn’t change, next year’s lineup will probably just defer to whatever Griffin says or does.
Some groups – particularly the agricultural interests that have fought a years-long effort to create Rural Management Areas – might consider that a good thing. Griffin deeply believes that any efforts to manage groundwater should be strictly voluntary. Efforts to ratchet up regulations almost never see the light of day in her committee.
Plus, Rep. Regina Cobb, who spent years pressing the Rural Management Area concept (and the rare lawmaker who attempted to go around Griffin, albeit unsuccessfully), is leaving at the end of this session.
No other lawmakers have publicly committed to take up Cobb’s fight.
Killing ideas without debate leads to inaction
But the state’s water situation is growing markedly worse. Water levels at Lake Mead, which supplies about 40% of Arizona’s water, are plummeting. Finite groundwater supplies are declining in many areas of the state. Wells are running dry. People are building homes without access to water.
And while voluntary actions are certainly preferable to address these issues, it’s becoming painfully clear that relying on the good intentions of others isn’t enough to make a dent.
Even if Griffin and others succeed this session in creating a $1 billion Arizona Water Authority to help fund augmentation and conservation projects, that will only address part of the problem (and probably still won’t move the needle for many rural areas with dwindling groundwater, because few rural water providers have the customer base to pay back the loans the authority would offer to build these projects).
It’s past time for lawmakers to engage in some tough conversations on the ground rules for water use – the conversations that are perennially snuffed out by Griffin in her committee.
That doesn’t mean the Legislature should blindly pass bills, like Cobb’s Rural Management Area plan, that for years have been DOA.
But we’re only hurting ourselves if lawmakers keep putting off the conversations that those and other bills would spur. Tamping down every idea Griffin dislikes doesn’t lead to alternatives or better solutions; it just leads to inaction – which only makes the options tougher when dry taps force us to act.
Water requires compromise, even among lawmakers
Most Republicans who have taken an interest in water – including Rep. David Cook, House Speaker Rusty Bowers, who is running for Senate next year, and Sens. T.J. Shope and Sine Kerr, who chairs the Senate’s natural resources committee – generally align with Griffin, particularly on rural water issues.
There is no go-to urban water expert in the House or Senate. And while Democrats like Reps. Andrés Cano and Sarah Liguori or Sens. Morgan Abraham and Rosanna Gabaldón are asking great questions, they also lack the numbers to compel legislation to be heard.
That’s not a call to silence Griffin or find someone else to chair the committee. No other lawmaker works harder to represent a certain viewpoint on water.
I admire her resolve and hard work.
But it is a call for whoever is elected this fall to make getting educated on water – and considering a more diverse set of potential solutions – much more of a priority.
Arizona is facing a water future where even the best outcomes will require sacrifice and compromise. A future where cities, farmers and everyone in between will be asked to swallow bitter pills for the good of the state.
The next governor, House and Senate will set the tone for these efforts. Which is why now, more than ever, we need all perspectives represented and all ideas on the table.
Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. On Twitter: @joannaallhands.
If you love this content (or love to hate it – hey, I won't judge), why not subscribe to get more?
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona cannot leave its water future to just 1 lawmaker

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-05-09 18:13:22

The Salton sea and ocean distance is part of a plausible answer.

http://www.fdungan.com/salton.htm

https://pacinst.org/salton-sea-import-export-plans/

How to save the Salton Sea: Proposal to import seawater across California desert is biggest since Hoover Dam

current use of the sea lake water

possible path to the Salton sea from the gulf

A chorus of private-sector engineers and Salton Sea advocates claims the silver bullet is building a canal across the U.S.-Mexico border to pull water from the Sea of Cortez, 125 miles to the south.

Something else to think of is how to cover the open water to slow evaporation and it can be done by Portugal just plugged in Europe's largest floating solar power plant AAX4MCg.img?w=534&h=300&m=6

Two tugboats shifted a vast array of 12,000 solar panels – the size of four football pitches – to their mooring on Portugal’s Alqueva reservoir last week. Miguel Patena, group director in charge of the solar project, said electricity produced from the floating solar park, with installed capacity of 5-megawatts, would cost a third of that produced from a gas-fired plant.
The panels on the Alqueva reservoir, which is used to generate hydropower, would produce 7.5 gigawatt/hours (GWh) of electricity a year, with lithium batteries to store 2 GWh.
The solar panels will supply 1,500 families – roughly a third – of the power needs of the nearby towns of Moura and Portel.

The water is not only for drinking but also to create power and with the low levels its getting harder to do both.

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-10 06:52:12

For SpaceNut re #184 .... thanks for this ** very ** helpful addition to the topic, and specifically the overview of Salton Sea!

This post is about out-of-control frenzy to pull ground water in California. When it is gone, it will be gone for ever (in human terms).

https://www.yahoo.com/news/race-bottom- … 35302.html

LA Times
'A race to the bottom': New bill aims to limit frenzy of well drilling on California farms
Ian James
Mon, May 9, 2022, 8:00 AM
Visalia, CA - October 12: Water flows from an underground well to irrigate an orchard on Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2021 in Visalia, CA. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Water flows from an underground irrigation well in a Visalia orchard. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
In farming areas across the Central Valley, a well-drilling frenzy has accelerated over the last year as growers turn to pumping more groundwater during the drought, even as falling water levels leave hundreds of nearby homes with dry wells.
Counties have continued freely issuing well-drilling permits in the years since California passed a landmark law, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014, which is intended to address the problem of excessive pumping over the next two decades to preserve groundwater.
Some state legislators are now supporting a bill that they say would strengthen oversight and limit the well-drilling frenzy by requiring a review of permits for new wells by the same local agencies that are charged with managing groundwater.

“It just makes common sense that the agency in charge of trying to get groundwater pumping into a sustainable yield should be able to weigh in on new wells going into that very same aquifer that they're trying to monitor,” said Assemblymember Steve Bennett (D-Ventura), who introduced the bill.
The way the system stands, Bennett said, counties have been signing off on permits and agricultural landowners have been “rushing to get their wells in” before limits on pumping take effect.
“I think the rush to sink more wells will continue, if not accelerate, if we don't have this,” Bennett said.
The bill, AB 2201, was approved April 26 by the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, and next goes before the Appropriations Committee.
The bill would require so-called groundwater sustainability agencies, which were established under the 2014 law, to weigh in on well permit applications.
Gov. Gavin Newsom in March issued a drought order that similarly prohibits local governments from granting a well-drilling permit if it would be “inconsistent” with the area's groundwater management plan. Newsom’s order has slowed the drilling of new wells in parts of the San Joaquin Valley.
But the order brings only temporary measures during the drought, and the bill’s proponents argue a similar permanent change is necessary to protect vulnerable communities before more wells run dry.
The legislation would prohibit a local government from approving a well permit unless it obtains written verification from the groundwater sustainability agency that the proposed well is “consistent” with the area’s management plan. Groundwater basins that the state deems high or medium priority would be subject to the requirement.
The bill would require agencies to post a notice of each well permit application online and allow 30 days for the public to comment. There would be an exemption for household wells or wells that supply drinking water.
Bennett said the fundamental problem is that new wells have been approved without an analysis of how the pumping will affect other wells in nearby communities.
“Disadvantaged communities need elected officials to stand up for them,” Bennett said.
Those who spoke in favor during the committee meeting included Ruth Martinez, from the community of Ducor in Tulare County.
Martinez said her community of about 600 people, mostly Latino farmworkers, long suffered with nitrate contamination in their drinking water, which meant they couldn’t safely use the tap water. In 2016, the community received a $1.8-million state grant and drilled a deeper well, nearly 2,000 feet deep, which has provided clean water.
But last year, a new agricultural well was drilled across the street from their well, which she said threatens the community’s water supply.
“The county approved this new well without thinking about the impact on our community,” Martinez told the legislators.
If the legislation had been in place, Martinez said, the local groundwater agency would have notified the community, and could have rejected the permit application.
Martinez, a board member of the Ducor Community Services District, said residents are concerned about the pumping.
“I am getting many calls and concerns from families about the decreased pressure and the lack of water coming from our taps,” Martinez said. “Our brand-new water is failing because the county did not protect us.”
The bill's supporters include the group Community Water Center.
“It's absolutely imperative that we connect and close the gap between land-use permitting decisions and sustainable groundwater management,” said Kyle Jones, the group’s policy director.
For groundwater management to succeed, he said, the state should stop the proliferation of new agricultural wells next to drinking-water wells.
The legislation is opposed by groups representing the agriculture industry.
Brenda Bass of the California Chamber of Commerce said the bill would "create a new permitting regime for groundwater wells that will negatively impact agricultural businesses” and food production.
A large portion of California’s water, roughly 80% of the supply that is diverted and pumped, goes to agriculture in a typical year, according to state data. The Central Valley’s farmlands produce almonds, pistachios, fruits and vegetables, and also supply large dairies.
Danny Merkley, director of water resources for the California Farm Bureau, said he thinks the bill conflicts with the “locally driven” approach that defined the 2014 groundwater law and is “premature.”
The new requirements under Newsom’s executive order should be given some time to play out “so we can identify the issues and fine-tune it,” Merkley said, before considering permanent legislation.
The water supplies that farms have long relied on, delivered by canals from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, have been cut back during the drought. Growers have traditionally turned to more groundwater pumping during dry times, and aquifer levels in the Central Valley have been declining for decades.
With climate change bringing hotter temperatures and intensifying droughts, the pressures on the limited supply of groundwater continue to mount.
The 2014 law is expected to eventually bring pumping limits that force growers to leave some farmland dry and unplanted.
Measurements by NASA satellites have documented the depletion of vast quantities of water over the last two decades. So much water has been extracted from aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley that the land is sinking as clay soils collapse, a problem that has damaged canals and cracked roads.
In the Tulare Basin, the ground is sinking at a rate of about a foot per year.
According to statewide data, more than 3,900 dry household wells have been reported since 2013, and the number of dry wells has risen dramatically over the last year. The state received reports of 975 household wells that ran dry in 2021, many in farming areas in the Central Valley.
An additional 162 dry wells have been reported so far this year.
The state Department of Water Resources recently reviewed plans submitted by local groundwater agencies and told agencies in farming areas of the San Joaquin Valley that their plans are “incomplete” and will require changes to address widespread risks of more wells going dry, as well as other problems.
“We have a real problem in California with the issue of water,” Bennett said. “We have a disconnect between those who are managing the basin for sustainable yield and those who are approving the sinking of the new wells at the same time."
Bennett said he’s been thinking about the need to address the problem for some time, and he decided to introduce the bill after reading a Los Angeles Times article examining the well-drilling frenzy in the San Joaquin Valley. The analysis by The Times found that more than 6,200 agricultural wells have been drilled in the valley since the groundwater law was passed in 2014.
“I think that tipped the balance for me to say, 'We're going to do it this year,'” Bennett said.
He introduced the bill in January, and it has since been amended.
Because the bill faces opposition from agricultural groups, Bennett said he expects a “huge battle” to try to get it passed.
Fran Pavley, a former state senator who helped draft the 2014 law, said the bill is a necessary update.
“Can you allow an unlimited new number of wells to be added?” said Pavley, who is now environmental policy director at the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy.
“There needs to be additional oversight on the local level,” Pavley said. “We’re still in a race to the bottom.”
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-05-12 21:52:32

As water runs short in California, commission will vote on whether to allow another costly desalination plant

SpaceNut · 2022-05-18 19:29:11

Can we pump ocean water to the Great Salt Lake? Utah lawmakers will study that idea

Pipelines are run all over the US for a variety of products so why not sea water.

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-18 20:40:46

For SpaceNut re #187

Thanks for adding the Utah link to this topic....

As you may have noticed, this topic includes details of a proposal for a pipeline from the shore of the Sea of Cortez to Phoenix.

That one would have had an elevation of only (about) 1000 feet and a couple of hundred miles to deal with. The Utah proposal would be a LOT bigger, but at least it would not be an International collaboration.

Dealing with California might be just as challenging as dealing with Mexico.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-19 10:21:37

For SpaceNut re Correspondence with Arizona Onsite team leader ...

Depending upon how far your neighbors can stretch their imaginations, there ** is ** a scenario on offer that might be worth a look.
Utah is facing the loss of the Great Salt Lake.
Someone (I have no idea who since this is so imaginative I cannot "imagine" a resident of Utah would be able to come up with it) suggested pulling sea water from the Pacific.
That's a 700 mile pipeline with a 4000 foot lift.
However, it has the absolutely ** outstanding ** attribute of NOT involving Mexico.
A stretch pipe down to Arizona would be down hill!
There is at least one article on the Internet about this idea.
I'd like to suggest vigorous support from everyone who can possibly encourage the initiative!
Water to Utah means water to every other State along the path, and near by.
The supply, once opened, is unlimited.
Sunlight to power equipment is abundant.
MIT recently came up with a solar power storage system (based on innovation in their labs) that appears able to provide 50% system efficiency for energy storage.
If achieved, that would be quite acceptable for industrial scale performance, which this project would be.
Every State in the path ** should ** be a supporter of this idea.
California may be a holdout, so Oregon is the backup.

(th)_

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-19 10:33:55

For SpaceNut re Correspondence with State of California:

Dear Governor Newsom:
The subject of this inquiry is Pacific Ocean water for Utah and other States
Some adventurous person in Utah suggested importing Pacific Ocean water to refill the Great Salt Lake.
That would be a 700 mile pipeline, with a rise of 4000 feet.
However, as it happens, the State of Arizona has been mulling a pipeline from the Sea of Cortez.
That pipeline would have a run of under 200 miles and a rise of about 1000 feet.
If Arizona could tap the line to Utah, the flow would be down hill, and the arrangement would have the significant advantage of NOT involving Mexico.
However, California is a State where objectors are in position to prevent worth while solutions to pressing problems.
Are ** you ** in a position to secure California coastline for Utah's project?
If you ** are ** please move rapidly to lock in that access, because the objectors will be pouncing as soon as they hear about this proposal.
If you ** are ** able to secure the coastline, please have someone contact all the States who would be eligible to receive a flow of sea water to help them meet their future water needs.
The key player in this scenario appears to be ... ** you ** !!!
(th)
Moderator, NewMars forum, Mars Society

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-19 11:20:41

For SpaceNut ....

In thinking ahead in the unlikely event anyone takes the Utah/Salt-Lake idea seriously, a problem would be gaining access to land for a pipeline.

However, conveniently, Uncle Sam has established a lane already:

Per Google:

Aside from the “Loneliest Road in America,” Interstate 80 is the cross-country traveler's most direct means of getting from the salty seashores of San Francisco to the also salty lakeshore of Salt Lake City.

By running the pipeline under the highway (or under such free terrain as may have been set aside next to it), the various States can take part in the venture as much or as little as they might choose.

In some situations, where the road curves due to mountainous terrain, depending upon who owns the land, a straight shot might be negotiated.

There's a ** lot ** to like about the Salt Lake idea, on multiple levels.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-05-19 20:30:06

Since its sea water the resistance to a pipelines would be less than oil for sure. its the size and pumping stations that will need to be researched for power requirements to over come the hill rises.

I am enjoying the letter writing content that you are providing.

https://azdot.gov/adot-blog/us-80-mothe … a-highways

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-20 05:52:50

For SpaceNut re #192

Thanks for that ** really neat ** map of Route 80 ! I must have used that road when I drove from San Francisco to Salt Lake City, and on to Fort Meade, Maryland, some years ago. I don't remember the drive by the route number. I remember the wide open skies, and particular vistas that made a permanent impression.

Your comment about less objection to sea water is encouraging. The engineers would need to provide for pipe cleaning equipment to travel through the pipe with the shipments, to keep the interior clean. The shipments of crude oil from various places often include "pigs?" that make the trip to keep the interior of the pipes clean. If someone can find a bit more detail it would be helpful.

Shipment of sea water will subject the interior of the pipe to the caress of sodium chloride, and a great many other potentially damaging materials, including water itself, which is a dissolving agent of great effectiveness.

***
The presence of sea water flowing by every foot of the 700 mile route will attract the interest of local residents.

Once pioneered by the Utah initiative, I would expect the demand for more and more and more sea water to continue as the drought worsens.

I did a quick check for the market for sodium and chlorine last night, and the global market is strong and forecast to become stronger still.

If separation of sodium from chlorine is made a standard procedure where the sea water is removed from the pipe (except at Great Salt Lake), then the growth of industries that make use of those materials should increase as well.

***
Calliban often posts about the need for increased quantities of energy to maintain the level of civilization we enjoy today, let alone to increase the number of people who enjoy a decent standard of living. The Utah Great Salt Lake water pipeline would (most likely) be accompanied by construction of solar power collection fields of some size, all along the route, and I would expect those to be sized to support clusters of people along the way.

Every location where an energy source is located could be "paid" in kind, with a portion of the sea water flow.

An economy built around the distribution, processing and use of all the available materials in sea water should become quite robust, and it will NOT be negatively affected by climate change of the kind we are seeing today.

Climate change that led to endless rain fall would be challenging, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards right now.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-20 07:57:40

For SpaceNut ...

The Interstate 80 roadway has an association, and that Association has a web site.

In hopes of increasing awareness of the Utah - Pacific Ocean initiative, I posted this message today:

This message is to inform those who live along Interstate 80 West of Salt Lake City that there is a proposal floated in Utah, to pull sea water from the Pacific Ocean to refill the Great Salt Lake. Governor Newsom of California received notice of this idea, because California would be a significant partner in such an undertaking. Route 80 is the logical pathway for a pipeline to carry sea water from the Pacific Ocean to the Great Salt Lake. If sea water is shipped from the Pacific to Utah, every municipality along the way could be expected to benefit, because once the pattern is set, the demand for water in the American West will pull additional water from the Pacific. Salt and other minerals in the sea water can be extracted and converted into valuable commodities such as Chlorine gas and Sodium metal, using Solar Trough technology. If anyone is interested in working on this opportunity, the NewMars forum of the Mars Society offers a venue for discussion, for collection and sharing of facts, and for consensus building.
tahanson43206
Moderator, NewMars forum

The original contact form contained an extra letter "s". That letter was removed from this copy.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-20 19:45:11

This topic includes discussion of a proposal for a 150 mile pipeline from the Sea of Cortez to Phoenix, Arizona.

That proposal may never happen, because of the difficulty of solving all the social problems involved.

Meanwhile, without any difficulty at all, communities in Texas have collaborated on approving and building a 150 mile pipeline for water to share between the communities, and to improve the collective reliability of the system.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-3-billion- … 48820.html

This is what a ** real ** water pipeline looks like!

Fort Worth Star-Telegram
$2.3 billion, 150-mile pipeline connects Tarrant, Dallas counties’ water districts
Harrison Mantas/hmantas@star-telegram.com
Harrison Mantas
Fri, May 20, 2022, 5:43 PM
The Tarrant Regional Water District and Dallas water utility celebrated the opening of a 150-mile pipeline Friday, helping secure the growing region’s supply of drinking water.
The $2.3 billion project, funded between the two counties and the state, comes at a time when North Texas faces the dual threats of prolonged drought and surging demand for water.
As of Tuesday, roughly 81% of Texas was experiencing some level of drought, affecting an estimated 16.6 million people, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. More than half the state is suffering from extreme or exceptional drought conditions.
There are 4.6 million water users in the Fort Worth-Dallas metroplex, and that number is expected to double by 2070, said Terry Lowery, director of Dallas Water Utilities. The integrated pipeline will increase the supply of water available to Tarrant and Dallas counties.

It adds a third lake to the Tarrant Regional Water District’s existing two reservoirs, Richland-Chambers and Cedar Creek reservoirs. It also strengthens the system by adding a third pipeline to move water from the reservoirs, said Ed Weaver, the Tarrant district’s program manager for the pipeline project.
If Dallas needs water and Tarrant has it, it can be moved through this new pipeline and vice versa, explained Denis Qualls, a senior program manager with the Dallas water utility.
Rainfall patterns differ across North Texas, with areas farther east typically seeing more precipitation, Qualls said. By connecting the Tarrant and Dallas systems, the utilities have a wider basin to capture rainfall and strengthen the system overall, he said.
“We’re really ahead of the curve with this pipeline,” said Carlos Flores, a Fort Worth city council member. Instead of waiting for a dire water emergency, the utilities are working proactively to ensure the region has enough water, he said.
The project also saves money for both utilities, said Dan Buhman, general manager for the Tarrant district. He estimated the shared pipeline will net a $1 billion savings in operations and maintenance costs.
The most important savings, Buhman said, is the time and energy residents will save not having to go find clean drinking water. He pointed to statistics showing 2 billion people worldwide don’t have access to clean drinking water.
Projects like this pipeline allow residents to live without the fear of not knowing whether they will have enough water, Buhman said. “And that’s the essence of community and care for your fellow man.”
Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-05-21 10:41:08

TH, I notice that Arizona is quite a mountainous state. The north is highly elevated terrain, but the even the south contains quite a lot of hills.
http://mapsof.net/arizona/arizona-physical-map

One option would be to pump sea water from the Sea of Cortez using solar power during day time and store the sea water in a dammed lake, at say 800m elevation. This would provide a gravity pressure head of 8MPa to a desalination plant on the desert plane, which could run 24/7. The energy consumption of membrane desalination is the energy needed to pump water through the pressurised ion exchange cells. Once sea water has been pumped into the elevated storage lake, the whole process can be driven the gravity feed. This allows the sea water lake to function as a pumped energy store.

The concentrated brine exiting the ion exchange cells can be released into an evaporation salt lake on the desert floor. The lake would be divided into cells, which would be opened and closed using sluices. This would allow individual cells to completely evaporate, allowing salt to be removed using mechanical diggers. The diggers would load salt into hopper which would deposit salt onto a conveyor, which would fill rail trucks.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-05-21 10:43:41)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-21 11:28:36

For Calliban re #196

Your suggestion is surprising to me, and I'm right in the middle of this!

I like the suggestion for multiple reasons, not least of which is eliminating the problem of feeding concentrated brine back into the Sea of Cortez, which is most unwelcome, even though that is exactly what the existing demonstration plant is doing.

Furthermore, your suggestion blends nicely with the thinking of the Arizona Onsite representative whose comments I've been publishing here from time to time.

You ** still ** don't seem to be picking up on the suggestion I've been offering, to make Chlorine and Sodium out of all that salt.

Those are high value products which can be sold on the open market, which is growing globally.

If solar power makes them (when the Sun shines) then the fuel cost is much less that it would be if traditional fossil fuels were employed.

All in all, this suggestion ** should ** be of interest, so I'll forward it!

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-05-21 20:12:56

Don’t blame farms for drying up the Great Salt Lake. Why they could be key to its survival.

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-22 10:21:37

For SpaceNut re #198

Thank you for the link to the article about how farms in Utah consume prodigious quantities of fresh water.

I presume that evaporation drives the release of water from the Great Salt Lake, but diversion of fresh water away from the lake, and to other purposes, such as cities and farms, prevents recovery of normal water levels.

That said, the proposed pipeline to the Pacific Ocean ** could ** allow the lake to be replenished, and thus to permit what fresh water is available to be allocated for cities and farms to the extent possible.

However, beyond ** that **, a supply of sea water from the Pacific could feed solar power fed industries that prepare potable water for farms and cities, ** and ** deliver highly concentrated materials to the global market.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-05-27 04:56:45

I ** think ** this might work for the cloud harvester drone!
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/inc … 00537.html
Incredible new gel film transforms air into drinking water
Joshua Hawkins
Wed, May 25, 2022, 6:00 PM
Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin have created a water harvesting gel capable of pulling buckets of water out of thin air. What makes this gel so intriguing, and possibly revolutionary, is its low cost and easy creation process.

This new water harvesting gel can literally pull water from thin air
How it looks from the side
The water harvesting gel is so cheap to make thanks to its two primary ingredients. The first, cellulose, comes from the cell walls of plants. As such, it’s widely available and easy to obtain. The second ingredient, konjac gum, is a food additive that is widely used throughout the world.
The two ingredients combine together to make the gel film that is responsible for absorbing water from the air. Once absorbed, too, the gel can easily release it without requiring much energy to do so. But how does it work?
According to the paper the researchers published in Nature Communications, the porous structure of the gun attracts the water in the air around it. It then condenses inside the gel, storing it. To release it, though, all you need to do is apply gentle heat to the cellulose. When met with gentle heat, the cellulose turns hydrophobic and releases the captured water. This allows the water harvesting gel to do its job.
During tests, the water harvesting gel was able to absorb 13 liters (3.4 gallons) of water per day in an area with a humidity of 30 percent. Even when the humidity dropped to 15 percent, the gel produced more than 6 liters (1.6 gallons) a day. The researchers also believe they can improve the efficiency of the gel, which would make it able to absorb even more water from the air around it.
Making the gel
how researchers made water harvesting gel
How it works is impressive. But the most impressive thing about this cheap water harvesting gel, is that it’s easy to make, too.
The researchers say that all you need to do to make the gel is mix the basic ingredients together. Once mixed, you pour the ingredients into a mold and it has to set for two minutes. From there, they freeze-dried the product and peeled it out of the mold.
At that point, the gel is ready to get to work. Plus, you can scale it easily and shape it any way you want.
We’ve seen similar water harvesters that draw water from the air in the past. But, because it’s so easily producible at a low cost, this water harvesting gel could be a revolutionary way to address the water scarcity plaguing our planet.
Click here to read the full article.
See the original version of this article on BGR.com

Here's a link to the full article: https://bgr.com/science/incredible-new- … ing-water/

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2022-05-08 12:48:42

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#177 2022-05-08 13:45:49

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#178 2022-05-08 17:29:25

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#179 2022-05-08 19:37:31

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#180 2022-05-08 20:10:23

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#181 2022-05-09 17:13:07

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#182 2022-05-09 17:40:22

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#183 2022-05-09 18:03:31

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#184 2022-05-09 18:13:22

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#185 2022-05-10 06:52:12

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#186 2022-05-12 21:52:32

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#187 2022-05-18 19:29:11

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#188 2022-05-18 20:40:46

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#189 2022-05-19 10:21:37

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#190 2022-05-19 10:33:55

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#191 2022-05-19 11:20:41

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#192 2022-05-19 20:30:06

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#193 2022-05-20 05:52:50

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#194 2022-05-20 07:57:40

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#195 2022-05-20 19:45:11

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#196 2022-05-21 10:41:08

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#197 2022-05-21 11:28:36

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#198 2022-05-21 20:12:56

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#199 2022-05-22 10:21:37

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#200 2022-05-27 04:56:45

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

Board footer